What This Bill Does
This bill would direct the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to require patent applicants to disclose ties to the People’s Republic of China and other foreign adversaries. The goal is to give the government more visibility into who is seeking U.S. patent protection and whether foreign-state connections could affect national security, technology transfer, or ownership of intellectual property. It would affect inventors, companies, universities, and patent attorneys filing applications with the USPTO. The bill is aimed at adding a disclosure step to the patent process rather than changing patent rights themselves.
- USPTO would be directed to require foreign-adversary tie disclosures in patent applications.
- Disclosures would cover ties to the People’s Republic of China and other foreign adversaries.
- The bill amends title 35 of the U.S. Code, which governs patents.
- The measure is aimed at patent applicants, including companies, universities, and individual inventors.
Who This Bill Affects
For the general public, this bill would mainly affect people and organizations that file patents or work in innovation-heavy sectors. If enacted, applicants would face new disclosure obligations about ties to China and other foreign adversaries, which could mean more paperwork and closer scrutiny for companies, universities, and inventors with international connections. For consumers, the effect would be indirect: the bill is meant to protect U.S. technology and reduce security risks rather than change prices or benefits directly.
See how this bill affects you — sign in for a personalized analysisWho Supports & Opposes This
- National security hawks They argue the patent system should not be a blind spot for foreign influence. Requiring disclosure of ties to adversary governments can help identify applications that may involve sensitive technologies or hidden ownership structures.
- Domestic technology companies Many want clearer rules that reduce the risk of intellectual property leakage and unfair competition. They see disclosure requirements as a way to protect U.S.-developed innovations from being exploited by strategic rivals.
- Patent practitioners focused on compliance Some attorneys and compliance professionals favor standardized disclosure rules because they can create clearer expectations for applicants. A defined process may reduce ambiguity when dealing with international funding, ownership, or collaboration structures.
- Universities and research institutions with global partnerships They may worry the rule could chill legitimate international research collaborations and add administrative burdens to already complex patent filings. Institutions with broad foreign ties could face extra scrutiny even when their work is entirely lawful and civilian.
- Multinational businesses and startups seeking foreign capital They may see the requirement as another compliance layer that could slow patent prosecution and complicate fundraising or joint ventures. Firms with lawful overseas investors could be forced to disclose sensitive business relationships more broadly than they prefer.
- Civil liberties and innovation-policy advocates They may argue the bill could sweep too broadly if it defines foreign-adversary ties in a way that captures ordinary commercial or academic relationships. Overbroad disclosure rules can create uncertainty and discourage beneficial cross-border innovation.
Key Implications
-
““require disclosures in patent applications””
Patent filers would have to add a new disclosure step when seeking U.S. patent protection. In practice, that means more information gathering before filing and potentially more scrutiny from the USPTO or other agencies.
-
““ties to the People’s Republic of China and other foreign adversaries””
Applicants with ownership, funding, employment, or collaboration links to designated foreign adversaries could be affected. The practical consequence is that international business and research relationships may need to be documented more carefully.
-
““amend title 35, United State Code””
This places the change inside the federal patent laws rather than creating a separate security program. That means the disclosure requirement would become part of the patent application process itself.
-
““for other purposes””
This phrase signals that the bill may also include related implementation or enforcement provisions. In real-world terms, that often means the USPTO could receive authority to define how disclosures are collected and reviewed.
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.