PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Schweikert, David [R-AZ-1] · R–AZ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 22, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.10218 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.10218 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.10218 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.10218 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-09-01 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The proposed Advancing American Innovation Act would change how the United States International Trade Commission handles unfair-import complaints. It would restrict when licensing activity can support a complaint and require a public-interest finding before a final order blocking imports. It would also require patent complainants to disclose certain outside financial backers and funding agreements. These changes would affect complainants, their licensees, importers, and litigation funders, and would apply to complaints filed on or after enactment.
This Act may be cited as the Advancing American Innovation Act.
the complainant may not rely upon activities by its licensees unless the license leads to the adoption and development of articles that incorporate the claimed patent, copyright, trademark, mask work, or design for sale in the United States.
If the Commission determines, as a result of an investigation under this section, that there is both (A) a violation of this section and (B) exclusion of the articles concerned is in the interest of the public
file with the Commission, and serve on all other named parties in the proceeding, the identity, address, and, with respect to a legal entity, the place of incorporation and principal place of business of any third party funder with respect to that proceeding
except as otherwise ordered by the Commission, or stipulated by all named parties, file with the Commission, and provide to all other named parties in the proceeding for inspection and copying, any agreement between the complainant and any third party funder
The amendments made by subsection (b) shall apply to complaints filed under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply to complaints filed under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Section 2 states an aim of focusing the Commission's resources on genuine domestic industries and protecting public welfare and the economy. This is a declared purpose, not evidence that the proposal would achieve those results.
The purpose of this section is to ensure that the resources of the United States International Trade Commission are focused on protecting genuine domestic industries and to safeguard the public health and welfare and the United States economy (including competitive conditions).
The bill would remove licensing from the existing list alongside engineering and research and development. It would add a separate category requiring substantial investment in licensing activities that leads to adoption and development of products incorporating the listed intellectual property.
in subparagraph (C), by striking engineering, research and development, or licensing. and inserting engineering and research and development; or
(D) substantial investment in licensing activities that leads to the adoption and development of articles that incorporate the patent, copyright, trademark, mask work, or design.
A complainant could count its licensees' activities toward the amended industry requirements only if the license leads to adoption and development of products incorporating the claimed intellectual property for sale in the United States.
For purposes of paragraph (3), the complainant may not rely upon activities by its licensees unless the license leads to the adoption and development of articles that incorporate the claimed patent, copyright, trademark, mask work, or design for sale in the United States.
For a sworn complaint, a person relied on to satisfy the industry requirement would have to join the complaint under oath. The provision would not compel that person to join.
For a complaint under oath, a person may be relied upon to qualify as an industry under subsection (a)(2) only if the person joins the complaint under oath, except that nothing in this sentence shall be construed to compel such a person to join the complaint.
At the start of an investigation, the Commission would have to identify whether an issue capable of deciding the case is suitable for expedited fact-finding and a shortened hearing. For such an issue, it would direct the assigned administrative law judge to issue an initial determination within 100 days after the investigation begins.
The Commission shall identify, at the beginning of an investigation, whether the investigation presents a dispositive issue appropriate for an expedited fact finding and an abbreviated hearing limited to that issue, and shall direct the assigned administrative law judge to issue an initial determination on that issue not later than 100 days after the investigation is instituted.
An initial determination under that expedited procedure would pause the investigation until the Commission acts.
Any initial determination by the assigned administrative law judge under subparagraph (A) shall stay the investigation pending Commission action.
The replacement investigation provision would generally require a decision on whether a violation occurred. It would allow the Commission to end all or part of an investigation without that decision through an agreed order or a private-party agreement, including an agreement to use arbitration.
The Commission shall determine, with respect to each investigation conducted by it under this section, whether or not there is a violation of this section, except that the Commission— (A) may, by issuing a consent order or on the basis of an agreement between the private parties to the investigation, including an agreement to present the matter for arbitration, terminate any such investigation, in whole or in part, without making such a determination
The Commission could also end all or part of an investigation without further determinations if it finds that blocking the products would not serve the public interest. It would have to consider the products' nature, public health and welfare, the economy and competition, production of similar or competing products by the complainant and its licensees, and United States consumers.
may determine during the course of the investigation that the exclusion of articles under investigation would not be in the interest of the public, after considering the nature of the articles concerned and the effect of such exclusion upon the public health and welfare, the United States economy (including competitive conditions), the production of like or directly competitive articles by the complainant and its licensees, and United States consumers, and terminate any such investigation, in whole or in part, without making any further determination.
The bill would revise the existing language about Commission findings to address the United States economy, including competition, and to specify domestic production by the complainant and its licensees. The surrounding statutory provision is not fully reproduced.
by striking its findings on the public health and welfare, competitive conditions in the United States economy, and inserting its findings on the public health and welfare, the United States economy (including competitive conditions),
by inserting by the complainant and its licensees after the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States
For a final import-exclusion order, the Commission would have to find both a violation and that blocking the products serves the public interest. After considering the listed public-interest factors, it would then be required to block the products imported by a person violating the provision.
If the Commission determines, as a result of an investigation under this section, that there is both (A) a violation of this section and (B) exclusion of the articles concerned is in the interest of the public, after considering the nature of the articles concerned and the effect of such exclusion upon the public health and welfare, the United States economy (including competitive conditions), the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States by complainant and its licensees, and United States consumers, then the Commission shall direct that the articles concerned that are imported by any person violating the provisions of this section be excluded from entry into the United States.
During an investigation, the Commission could block imports if it finds reason to believe a violation exists and determines that exclusion would serve the public interest. This authority would be discretionary and would require consideration of the products, public welfare, the economy and competition, domestic production by the complainant and its licensees, and consumers.
If, during the course of an investigation under this section, the Commission determines that there is reason to believe that there is a violation of this section and that exclusion of the articles concerned would be in the interest of the public, the Commission may direct that the articles concerned that are imported by any person with respect to whom there is reason to believe that such person is violating this section be excluded from entry into the United States, after considering the nature of the articles concerned and the effect of such exclusion upon the public health and welfare, the United States economy (including competitive conditions), the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States by the complainant and its licensees, and United States consumers.
Instead of, or alongside, an import-exclusion order, the Commission could order a person violating or believed to be violating the provision to stop the unfair conduct. Before issuing that cease-and-desist order, it would have to consider the specified public-interest factors.
In addition to, or in lieu of, taking action under subsection (d) or (e), the Commission may issue and cause to be served on any person violating this section, or believed to be violating this section, as the case may be, an order directing such person to cease and desist from engaging in the unfair methods or acts involved, after considering the nature of the articles concerned and the effect of such order upon the public health and welfare, the United States economy (including competitive conditions), the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States by the complainant and its licensees, and United States consumers.
The replacement language for subsection (g)(1) would require the Commission to presume the complaint's facts true and, upon request, issue an import-exclusion or cease-and-desist order, or both, limited to the person concerned, after considering public-interest factors. The conditions triggering this rule are in subparagraphs that the supplied bill does not reproduce.
in subsection (g)(1), by amending the matter following subparagraph (E) to read as follows: the Commission shall presume the facts alleged in the complaint to be true and shall, upon request, issue an exclusion from entry or a cease and desist order, or both, limited to that person, after considering the nature of the articles concerned and the effect of such exclusion or order upon the public health and welfare, the United States economy (including competitive conditions), the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States by the complainant and its licensees, and United States consumers.
For the patent-proceeding disclosure rules, a third-party funder would include an individual or organization providing or promising something of value directly to the complainant or its counsel, or through an intermediary, in return for a financial interest tied to the complainant receiving money from the proceeding. The definition excludes the complainant and its counsel of record.
the term third party funder means, with respect to a proceeding described in paragraph (1), any individual or entity, other than the complainant in the proceeding (or the counsel of record with respect to that complainant)
provides, or agrees to provide, anything of value to— (I) that complainant or the counsel of record with respect to that complainant; or (II) another individual or entity that provides, or agrees to provide, anything of value to that complainant or the counsel of record with respect to that complainant
receives, or has been promised, a financial interest, the existence or value of which is contingent upon, or would be materially affected by, the receipt by that complainant of a monetary payment or monetary relief as a result of the proceeding, whether through settlement, a judgment, or otherwise
The funder definition would also cover a person or organization with an ownership stake of at least 5 percent in a funder described by the financial-support and financial-interest test.
(B) that has an equity stake of not less than 5 percent in an individual or entity described in subparagraph (A).
A complainant alleging patent infringement before the Commission would have to file each covered funder's identity and address with the Commission and serve that information on all other named parties. For a legal entity, disclosure would also include its place of incorporation and principal place of business.
A complainant in a proceeding alleging infringement of a patent under this section shall— (A) file with the Commission, and serve on all other named parties in the proceeding, the identity, address, and, with respect to a legal entity, the place of incorporation and principal place of business of any third party funder with respect to that proceeding
The complainant would also have to file covered agreements with the Commission and make them available to other named parties for inspection and copying. This would cover agreements establishing the defined funding or ownership relationship, or otherwise relating to the proceeding or an allegedly infringed patent. The Commission could order otherwise, or all named parties could agree otherwise.
except as otherwise ordered by the Commission, or stipulated by all named parties, file with the Commission, and provide to all other named parties in the proceeding for inspection and copying, any agreement between the complainant and any third party funder with respect to that proceeding that— (i) establishes a relationship described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (5); or (ii) otherwise relates to— (I) the proceeding; or (II) any patent that the complainant, in the action, alleges to be infringed.
Disclosures would be due by the later of two dates: 10 days after the covered relationship is established, or the date formal legal process for the proceeding is first served.
shall make those disclosures not later than the later of— (A) the date that is 10 days after the date on which a relationship described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (5) is established between the complainant and the applicable third party funder; or (B) the date on which process with respect to the proceeding is first served.
A complainant would have to promptly supplement or correct disclosures upon learning that information is incomplete or incorrect. The text requires correction in a timely manner but does not set a numerical deadline.
A complainant that submits the disclosures required under paragraph (1) shall, in a timely manner, supplement or correct any element of such a disclosure if the complainant learns that the element is, or has become, incomplete or incorrect.
The Commission would have to impose appropriate sanctions on a complainant that does not fully comply with the funding-disclosure requirements. The provision does not specify the type or amount of sanctions.
The Commission in a proceeding described in paragraph (1) shall impose appropriate sanctions on any complainant that fails to comply in full with the requirements of this subsection.
Both the Commission-authority changes and the funding-disclosure requirements would apply to complaints filed on or after the bill's enactment date.
The amendments made by subsection (b) shall apply to complaints filed under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply to complaints filed under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
The supplied actions snapshot, updated September 22, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Ways and Means on September 1, 2026. It does not establish subsequent legislative action or enactment.
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-22T18:45:26Z. 2026-09-01: Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. 2026-09-01: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-09-01. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy rider attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish attachment history or the contents of other materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version; formal earmark disclosures and accompanying materials were not supplied.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow preferential benefit was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. The scope rules and procedural exceptions do not, on this evidence, establish a special-benefit finding. This conclusion is limited to the supplied version.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Sep 22, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI