HR3152-119

What This Bill Does

The Patent Eligibility Restoration Act responds to Supreme Court and lower-court section 101 doctrine by replacing judicial exceptions with statutory rules. The findings say patent eligibility jurisprudence has produced confusion across courts, federal agencies, patent owners, and practitioners, and state that all judicial exceptions are eliminated. The bill defines useful as having specific and practical utility from the perspective of a skilled person, rewrites section 101 so any useful process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter, or improvement is eligible subject only to statutory exclusions and other title 35 conditions, and excludes only mathematical formulas not part of a claimed invention, substantially economic or financial or business or social or cultural or artistic processes, mental processes performed solely in the human mind, natural processes occurring wholly independent of human activity, unmodified human genes, and unmodified natural materials. A claim is not excluded if it cannot practically be performed without a machine or manufacture; human genes and natural materials are not unmodified if purified, enriched, altered, or otherwise used in a useful invention. Eligibility must be determined by considering the claim as a whole and ignoring how it was made, whether elements are known or routine, the state of the art, and sections 102, 103, or 112. Courts may decide eligibility in infringement actions, with limited discovery when needed. The bill leaves obviousness-type double patenting untouched and says merely adding nonessential computer activity does not create eligibility.

Who Benefits and How

Patent applicants benefit because many inventions currently vulnerable to judicial-exception challenges would receive a clearer eligibility path. Biotechnology researchers benefit when altered, purified, enriched, or usefully employed genes and natural materials are not treated as unmodified exclusions. Software and machine-implemented invention developers benefit when claims that cannot practically be performed without a machine remain eligible. Patent attorneys benefit from clearer statutory eligibility rules separated from novelty, obviousness, and written-description requirements. Federal court staff benefit from a statutory framework that narrows eligibility disputes.

Who Bears the Burden and How

Accused infringer companies lose some early eligibility defenses based on judicial exceptions. Patent challenger attorneys must rely more heavily on sections 102, 103, 112, and explicit statutory exclusions. USPTO examiner staff must revise examination guidance and apply the new exclusions and whole-claim rule. Businesses using abstract business-method patents may face continued exclusions when a process is substantially economic or financial and lacks necessary machine use.

Key Provisions

• Repeals judicial exceptions to patent eligibility and replaces them with statutory exclusions.
• Defines useful as specific and practical utility from the perspective of a skilled person.
• Excludes standalone mathematical formulas, substantially economic or business processes, purely mental processes, unmodified human genes, and unmodified natural materials.
• Protects claims that cannot practically be performed without a machine or manufacture.
• Requires eligibility to be evaluated as a whole without using sections 102, 103, or 112 considerations.
• Preserves obviousness-type double patenting and blocks nonessential computer references from creating eligibility.