What This Bill Does
This bill would amend U.S. patent law to restrict people who are determined to pose a national security threat from obtaining and enforcing patents. In practical terms, it targets the ability to use the patent system not just to secure exclusive rights, but also to sue others for infringement and collect damages. The measure would affect inventors, patent owners, and entities tied to foreign intelligence, sanctions, export-control, or other security concerns. It is aimed at preventing the patent system from being used in ways that could benefit hostile actors or undermine U.S. security interests.
- Amends title 35 of the U.S. Code, which governs patents.
- Limits patent receipt and enforcement by persons who pose a national security threat.
- Affects both obtaining patents and suing to enforce them.
- Was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary on June 4, 2026.
- Has 2 cosponsors and no hearings or markups yet.
Who This Bill Affects
For the general public, this would mainly affect people and companies involved in patent ownership, licensing, or patent litigation, especially where national-security concerns are present. If you are not connected to those sectors, the bill would have little direct day-to-day effect, though it could influence how securely the government screens patent rights tied to sensitive technologies. It could also change whether certain inventions can be monetized or enforced in U.S. courts.
See how this bill affects you — sign in for a personalized analysisWho Supports & Opposes This
- National security officials and defense hawks They may argue that patent rights should not be available to actors who could use them to strengthen hostile capabilities or profit from sensitive technologies. Restricting patent access can be seen as a preventive tool that keeps the U.S. legal system from conferring leverage on security risks.
- Domestic technology companies Some firms may support the bill if they believe it reduces the chance that adversarial actors can lock up or litigate over strategic technologies. They may see it as a way to protect supply chains, trade secrets, and innovation ecosystems from exploitation.
- Patent holders concerned about foreign influence These stakeholders may favor clearer rules that prevent entities linked to security threats from asserting patent rights in U.S. courts. They may argue that this improves trust in the patent system and reduces the risk of coercive licensing or litigation.
- Civil liberties and due process advocates They may object that a security-threat standard can be vague or overbroad, allowing important property rights to be restricted without enough procedural safeguards. Their concern is that patent denial or unenforceability could be imposed on the basis of opaque or politicized determinations.
- Universities and research institutions with global collaborations These groups may worry that the bill could chill international research partnerships or create uncertainty for inventors with complex affiliations. They may argue that broad security screening could discourage legitimate innovation and complicate patent ownership structures.
- Small inventors and startups Smaller patent owners may fear that new security-based limits add another layer of risk and legal expense. If the rules are unclear, they could face delays, challenges, or loss of enforceability even when their inventions are commercially legitimate.
Key Implications
-
““limit the ability of persons who pose a threat to national security to receive and enforce patents””
This means the bill would not just affect patent applications; it would also affect the power to use patents in court. For real-world inventors, that can determine whether a patent has any practical value.
-
““amend title 35, United State Code””
Title 35 is the core federal patent statute. Changing it can alter who qualifies for patent rights and what legal remedies are available after a patent is granted.
-
““receive and enforce patents””
The phrase points to two separate stages: getting a patent and using it against others. A person could be blocked from one or both, which would sharply reduce the commercial usefulness of the invention.
-
““for other purposes””
This standard legislative phrase signals that the bill may include related technical or conforming changes. In practice, that often means the final legal effect could extend beyond the headline restriction.
Latest Status
June 4, 2026
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Take Action
Get more from BillBoard
Free tools to understand, respond to, and track this bill.
Ask AI about this billData sourced from api.congress.gov.