Strengthened patents empower hostile geopolitical strategies
Christopher Borges is a program manager and associate fellow with the Geoeconomics Center at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, AND D.C. Alexander Kersten is deputy director and a fellow of the Renewing American Innovation Project at CSIS, ’23, December 11, “New Efforts to Promote U.S. Innovation: The PERA and PREVAIL Act in Context,” CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES, accessed July 18, 2024, https://www.csis.org/analysis/new-efforts-promote-us-innovation-pera-and-prevail-act-context
Striking this balance—strengthening IP protections to promote innovation while minimizing the negative effects of bad actors—is central to the debate regarding two bills proposed earlier this year: the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA) and the Promoting and Respecting Economically Vital American Innovation Leadership (PREVAIL) Act. Combined, the two bills aim to strengthen IP protections by clarifying and expanding patent eligible subject matter, reducing duplicative litigation, and raising the standard for invalidating patents in certain situations. Proponents of the bills claim that they would facilitate the creation of new start-ups while also protecting them from predatory lawsuits. Detractors, however, assert that these bills would empower bad actors and ultimately hurt competition by making it harder to invalidate overly broad and vague patents.
Given that innovation is the new frontline in geopolitical competition, it is important that the United States update the legal framework of its IP system to advance its technological leadership. While previous iterations of PERA and the PREVAIL Act have made appearances on the legislative docket with limited success, Congress’ current preoccupation with cutting-edge technology like artificial intelligence might provide the momentum needed to advance one or both bills. Therefore, it is imperative to understand the bills’ potential impact on innovation.