PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jul 10, 2019
Support Technology and Research for Our Nation's Growth and Economic Resilience Patents Act of 2019 or the STRONGER Patents Act of 2019
This bill makes several patent-related changes, including with respect to how the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) conducts administrative patent validity reviews.
When deciding inter partes reviews (IPRs) and post-grant reviews (PGRs), the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) shall give patent claim terms their ordinary and customary meanings as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art (the same standard used in court). If a court has already construed a patent claim, the USPTO shall consider that construction.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The bill makes various changes relating to such proceedings, such as by (1) raising the burden of proof to invalidate a patent claim; (2) establishing that a challenged patent claim is presumed valid; (3) imposing standing requirements as to who may file an IPR or PGR, where none currently exist except for some timing requirements; (4) restricting when multiple challenges may be filed against the same patent; and (5) limiting IPRs and PGRs when a court or the International Trade Commission has ruled on the obviousness or novelty of the same patent claims.
This bill also (1) makes it easier to get an injunction after a court finding of the infringement of a valid patent, by a presumption that further infringement would cause irreparable injury and the remedies available at law are inadequate; (2) authorizes the USPTO to keep and spend the fees that it collects; and (3) makes bad faith patent demand letters an unfair or deceptive act in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act.
People & committees
Sen. Coons, Christopher A. [D-DE] · D–DE
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 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 S.2082 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 S.2082 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 S.2082 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 S.2082 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.