PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 25, 2025
Realizing Engineering, Science, and Technology Opportunities by Restoring Exclusive Patent Rights Act of 2025 or the RESTORE Patent Rights Act of 2025
This bill establishes a rebuttable presumption for injunctive relief in patent infringement cases. Specifically, if a court enters a final judgment finding infringement of a right secured by patent, the patent owner shall be entitled to a rebuttable presumption that the court should grant a permanent injunction with respect to that infringing conduct.
(In 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court held in eBay v. MercExchange that patent holders do not have an automatic right to a permanent injunction in a patent infringement case.)
People & committees
Rep. Moran, Nathaniel [R-TX-1] · R–TX
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 the Judiciary.
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.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 2025. 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.1574 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.1574 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.1574 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.1574 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 · 2025-02-25 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.
This bill would make a court order stopping patent infringement the presumed remedy after a court enters a final judgment finding infringement. Patent owners would receive a presumption favoring a permanent injunction—an ongoing court order against the infringing conduct. That presumption could be challenged, so an injunction would not be automatic. The supplied text is a proposal, not evidence of enacted law.
If, in a case under this title, the court enters a final judgment finding infringement of a right secured by patent, the patent owner shall be entitled to a rebuttable presumption that the court should grant a permanent injunction with respect to that infringing conduct.
2025-02-25: Introduced in House
Section 1 names the proposal the RESTORE Patent Rights Act of 2025.
This Act may be cited as the Realizing Engineering, Science, and Technology Opportunities by Restoring Exclusive Patent Rights Act of 2025 or the RESTORE Patent Rights Act of 2025.
The proposed findings argue that reliable patent protection supports U.S. competitiveness and that removing the historical presumption favoring injunctions has encouraged infringement, particularly against patent owners with limited financial resources. These are the bill's stated justifications, not independently established effects.
Securing effective and reliable patent protection for new technologies is critical to maintaining the competitive advantage of the United States in the global innovation economy.
Eliminating the traditional, historical equitable practice of applying a rebuttable presumption of injunctive relief in the case of continuing acts of infringement or willful infringement of a patent has— (A) substantially reduced the ability of patent owners to obtain injunctions to stop continuing or willful infringement of patents; and (B) created incentives for large, multinational companies to commit predatory acts of infringement, especially with respect to patents owned by undercapitalized entities, such as individual inventors, institutions of higher education, startups, and small or medium-sized enterprises.
Section 3 would amend the federal patent statute to require the presumption once a court enters a final judgment finding patent infringement. The proposed trigger does not expressly require repeated or intentional infringement. The presumption concerns a permanent injunction against the conduct found to infringe.
Section 283 of title 35, United States Code, is amended
If, in a case under this title, the court enters a final judgment finding infringement of a right secured by patent, the patent owner shall be entitled to a rebuttable presumption that the court should grant a permanent injunction with respect to that infringing conduct.
The supplied actions snapshot, updated December 5, 2025, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on the Judiciary on February 25, 2025.
Source snapshot updated 2025-12-05T22:08:59Z. 2025-02-25: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. 2025-02-25: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-02-25. 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 change attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish what appears in other versions or accompanying 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 does not establish the contents of other versions or accompanying disclosure and committee materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow carve-out, special exemption, or preferential exception was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. The generally applicable remedy for the bill's intended beneficiaries does not itself constitute such an exception. This conclusion is limited to the supplied version.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Dec 5, 2025. How PlainBill uses AI