Senators Reintroduce Patent Eligibility Reform Bill Amid DOJ Shift on Supreme Court Review

Last week, Senators Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) and Chris Coons (D-Del.), together with Representatives Kevin Kiley (R-Calif.) and Scott Peters (D-Calif.), reintroduced the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA). This legislation, initially proposed by Senators Tillis and Coons a few years ago, seeks to eliminate all judicial exceptions to patent eligibility under Section 101 of the Patent Act. Under PERA, patent eligibility determinations would be made without considering Sections 102, 103, or 112, effectively narrowing the scope of judicially created exceptions such as those for abstract ideas and pure mental processes.

Senator Tillis emphasized the importance of "clear, reliable, and predictable patent rights" to foster investment in innovative technologies critical to the United States’ economic competitiveness and national security. Senator Coons echoed this sentiment, stating that PERA "restores clarity to the law on what can be patented and what cannot," addressing a long-standing request from federal courts for legislative guidance that the Supreme Court has declined to provide.

Representative Kiley highlighted the challenges American innovators face due to "convoluted Supreme Court rulings and tests on subject matter eligibility," which have made it harder for inventors to secure patents and allowed foreign competitors to gain an advantage. Representative Peters noted that while U.S. patents have historically protected inventions and supported innovation ecosystems such as San Diego’s life sciences and technology sectors, recent Supreme Court decisions have sown confusion about patent eligibility, prompting calls for Congressional action.

Despite the reintroduction of PERA, it remains uncertain whether this legislative effort will translate into substantive reform or serve primarily as a symbolic gesture amid ongoing debates over patent eligibility.

In parallel, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims invalidated patent claims asserted by Audio Evolution Diagnostics, deeming them abstract ideas under the Supreme Court’s Alice framework. The Federal Circuit affirmed this decision via a brief Rule 36 order. Audio Evolution subsequently petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari on two issues: whether the claims are patent-ineligible under Section 101 and whether the Federal Circuit erred in summarily affirming the lower court’s ruling.

The Department of Justice responded by urging the Supreme Court to deny the petition, arguing that the case does not present a more compelling reason for review than prior denials in similar cases such as Interactive Wearables and American Axle. The government also opposed addressing the summary affirmance issue, noting the Supreme Court’s reluctance to engage with it.

However, the government took the unexpected position that if the Court grants certiorari on the patent eligibility question, it would not defend the lower court’s invalidation. Instead, the government would argue that the claims are patent-eligible under Section 101, asserting that a "scientific or technological apparatus is patent-eligible even though it is claimed at a high level of generality."

Legal observers remain skeptical that the Supreme Court will grant review in Audio Evolution, given its recent pattern of denying petitions raising similar issues. The government’s stance, while notable, is unlikely to alter the Court’s approach. Prior petitions addressing factual disputes at Alice Step 2 and summary judgment affirmances have been rejected, suggesting Audio Evolution faces an uphill battle.

For stakeholders advocating for changes to patent eligibility jurisprudence, Congressional reform through bills like PERA may offer a more viable path than relying on the Supreme Court to revisit these complex issues.

Shifting briefly from patent law to sports, the Italian Serie A soccer league is nearing its conclusion with a tight race for the championship and Champions League qualification. Napoli leads Inter Milan by three points with three rounds remaining, while Roma, Juventus, Lazio, and Bologna compete closely for the fourth Champions League spot. Roma’s 19-match unbeaten streak under manager Claudio Ranieri has revitalized their campaign, setting the stage for an exciting finish to the season.

Please note: Communications sent to the firm via its website do not establish an attorney-client relationship. Do not transmit privileged or confidential information through this channel.