No link! Project 2025 doesn’t endorse PERA or any specific IP legislation---it’s a series of bullet points that are uninformed about other proposals.

It is now a Presidential election year, which means a lot of policy proposals coming out of the major parties. Usually, the parties synthesize their views more broadly into a document called a Platform. It typically covers the main bases, such as broader economic concerns, major tentpole policies the party would pursue if it won, and geopolitical concerns. Patents are , yet despite the bipartisan desire to expand productivity, it often gets short shrift. And it is a shame given that the patent office is one of America’s longest standing institutions.

Although the  does not address patents, the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, which is the unofficial but influential Republican shadow platform prepared by former Trump aides, does have a lot to say in its . This is particularly interesting given that there have been several important patent bills introduced this term, like  and . So perhaps it is unsurprising that the detailed version of the plan has a lot to say about how it would approach these issues, as well as other priorities. This week in Nonobvious, we’re going to go over what the Republicans may have planned for the patent system.

What Heritage Has Been Cooking

What Project 2025 makes clear is that conservatives have decided to make patents a priority.

The first main proposal is to review patent eligibility requirements and PTAB rules. While Project 2025 doesn’t endorse PREVAIL or PERA, this is nonetheless evidence that Thom Tillis (and perhaps former Trump Administration officials) have the ear of leading conservatives. While these proposals are bullet points without extreme detail, there are still some important indicators as to where the authors are thinking.

When it comes to patent eligibility, the authors (who explicitly mention Section 101) indicate that their focus is on enhancing American leadership in key technology areas. Three areas they highlight are quantum computing, 5G, and AI. Regular readers of Nonobvious will know that the 5G patent wars are very strong; nearly every week, our Weekly Novelties section includes a major 5G patent lawsuit, SEP dispute, or cross-licensing agreement. Similarly, quantum computing does not seem to be hampered by 101. AI will be , but it is worth noting that AI patents  at a blistering rate. I was disappointed to not see biotech get a mention, particularly given that Mayo was the  and that it is one of .

When it comes to PTAB, Project 2025 emphasizes the “speed and transparency” of IPRs. This indicates that they don’t fully understand the . Although more speed and transparency are always good, the  with the PTAB have to do with the ease of raising issues, even from uninterested parties at any point in the life of the patent, which standards are applied during IPR (as opposed to litigation), and whether the judges make appropriate decisions. There is also a question of whether the PTAB has made it easier to fix otherwise invalid claims. None of these have to do with speed or transparency; the PTAB is much faster than litigation already and the public record for IPR is much better than federal courts. This suggests to me someone at the Heritage Foundation spoke to someone in Congress and wanted to get a Project 2025 endorsement for PTAB reform but that the staff did not fully care to understand what needed to be fixed.