Congress moves to lock in patent monopolies, raising drug and software costs
H.R. 5811 — Restoring America’s Leadership in Innovation Act of 2025 · Filed by Thomas Massie (R-KY) · 6 cosponsors · Introduced Oct 24, 2025 · Referred to committee
Your members of Congress
Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.
Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.
What it does
This bill fundamentally rewrites U.S. patent law by reverting from a 'first-to-file' system (adopted in 2011) back to a 'first-to-invent' system, abolishing the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and inter partes review proceedings, broadening what can be patented (including software and genetic discoveries), and treating patents as absolute private property rights that can only be revoked by courts, not administrative agencies. The primary beneficiaries are patent holders and inventors—especially those in biotech, software, and pharmaceutical sectors—who gain stronger, longer-lasting patent protections and immunity from administrative patent challenges.
Why we flagged it
The bill's core function is to strengthen patent protections and shift enforcement power from administrative agencies to courts, benefiting patent owners at the expense of patent challengers, competitors, and consumers. It is not primarily about innovation promotion (the stated rationale) but about redistributing power and duration of patent monopolies.
What the text implies
- Reverting to first-to-invent system may create years of litigation over priority disputes, slowing innovation and increasing legal costs for inventors.
- Abolishing inter partes review removes the primary mechanism by which competitors and the public can challenge invalid patents without filing expensive federal lawsuits, effectively locking in weak patents.
- Broadening patentability of software and genetic discoveries may enable 'patent thickets' where basic research tools are locked behind multiple overlapping patents, restricting downstream innovation.
- Mandatory judicial review of all patent validity challenges will overwhelm federal courts and create a two-tier system: wealthy patent holders can afford litigation; smaller inventors and startups cannot.
- Tolling patent term during validity challenges incentivizes patent owners to litigate aggressively, extending monopoly periods and delaying generic/biosimilar entry to markets.
Who it affects
While inventors and patent holders benefit from stronger protections, ordinary citizens and consumers face higher costs through extended monopolies on medicines, software, and genetic tests, reduced competition, and diminished access to affordable alternatives. The bill also shifts patent disputes from efficient administrative proceedings to costly federal courts, raising barriers for small inventors and startups to challenge invalid patents.
Who stands to gain
- pharmaceutical companies
- biotechnology firms
- software companies with large patent portfolios
- patent licensing firms and patent assertion entities (PAEs)
- large technology corporations
- patent litigation law firms
Named in the bill
Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, Bilski v. Kappos, Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Oil States Energy Services v. Greene's Energy Group, Impression Products Inc. v. Lexmark International, eBay v. MercExchange, Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)
Where it stands
6 cosponsors: 5 Republicans, 1 Democrats.
- Oct 24, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
- Oct 24, 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
3 lobbying clients named this bill on 5 disclosure filings across 2 quarters, Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $900,000 in lobbying spend. A filing names 21 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 61% of bills with at least one filing.
Thomas Massie, the sponsor, reported $112,556 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.
- Association for Accessible Medicines — $870,000 on 1 filing
- American Intellectual Property Law Association (aipla) — $20,000 on 2 filings
- Us Inventor — $10,000 on 2 filings
Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 20, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.
How this was measured
Analysis — Quorum's AI read the full bill text on Jul 2, 2026; transparency and hidden-provision scores are compared against the median of 16,222 analysed bills.
Status and sponsors — Congress.gov's bill record — actions, committee referrals and cosponsors — loaded nightly. The timeline shows status changes, not every procedural action.
Money — Senate Lobbying Disclosure Act filings whose specific-issue field names this bill for quarters ending Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. A filing's amount is reported whole beside the median number of bills a filing names; it is never divided across them. PAC receipts are FEC-reported contributions to the sponsor's candidate committee in the 2026 cycle.
As of — lobbying records through Jul 20, 2026 · page rendered 2026-10-20.
“Congress moves to lock in patent monopolies, raising drug and software costs” QuorumCivic. https://share.quorumcivic.app/bill/119/hr5811 Report an error
The week in bills
One email, Sunday: what Congress passed, what it changed, and who paid.
One link arrives to confirm the address. It is used for this email and nothing else, and every issue carries an unsubscribe link.