Congress expands patent monopolies on genes, software, and business methods.

What it does

This bill eliminates judicial exceptions to patent eligibility and restores a broad right to patent any useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter—except for pure math formulas, mental processes, unmodified genes, unmodified natural materials, and purely business/artistic processes. It codifies that modified genes and isolated natural materials ARE patentable, and that adding a computer reference to a business process does not make it patentable unless the computer is actually necessary to perform it.

Why we flagged it

The bill's core function is to restore and broaden patent eligibility by eliminating judicial exceptions created by courts over decades. It is a deregulatory measure that expands the scope of patentable subject matter, particularly benefiting software, biotech, and business-method inventors.

What the text implies

• Biotech and pharmaceutical companies may face easier patenting of gene therapies and isolated genetic materials, potentially extending monopoly periods and raising drug costs for consumers.
• Software and AI companies gain clearer patent eligibility for algorithms and machine-learning processes, increasing litigation risk and licensing costs for downstream developers and startups.
• Business-method patents become harder to challenge under the 'substantially economic' exclusion, potentially enabling patent trolls to enforce weak claims against ordinary commercial practices.
• The bill's carve-out for processes 'substantially economic, financial, business, social, cultural, or artistic' is narrow and may be litigated extensively, creating new uncertainty despite the stated goal of clarity.

Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.

Who it affects

Citizens gain broader access to patent protection for innovations (lower barriers to patenting, more incentive for invention disclosure), but face higher costs from expanded patent monopolies on software, biotech, and business methods—potentially raising prices for medicines, software, and services. The net effect depends on whether innovation gains outweigh monopoly costs, which is genuinely uncertain.

Who stands to gain

• pharmaceutical and biotech companies
• software and AI companies
• patent holders and patent licensing firms
• patent litigation firms

Named in the bill

U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Title 35 United States Code, Section 101 (patent eligibility), Sections 102, 103, 112 (patentability requirements)

Where it stands

1 cosponsor: 1 Democrats.

• May 1, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
• May 1, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on the Judiciary · Congress.gov: “Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary”

Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.

Money around this bill

33 lobbying clients named this bill on 45 disclosure filings across 2 quarters, Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $36,437,334 in lobbying spend. A filing names 13 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.

More lobbying clients named this bill than 98% of bills with at least one filing.

Kevin Kiley, the sponsor, reported $400,510 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle. $2,500 of that came from 1 PAC tied to these lobbying clients.

• Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America — $15,770,000 on 2 filings
• Amazon.com Services LLC — $4,360,000 on 1 filing
• Amgen Inc — $2,440,000 on 1 filing
• Biotechnology Innovation Organization — $2,360,000 on 1 filing
• Bayer Corporation (consolidated Report) — $1,820,000 on 1 filing

Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 22, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.