DAVID JONES

I've lobbied in opposition to creating a presumption of irreparable harm in patent litigation under the RESTORE Patent Rights Act of 2025 (S.708, H.R.1574), against weakening the Patent Trial and Appeal Board through administrative or legislative action (e.g., the PREVAIL Act, H.R.4370, S.2220, S.1553), and against the expansion of patent eligibility in the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (S.2140, H.R.9474, S.1546). I have also supported disclosure of third-party litigation funding (e.g., H.R.1109 and S.3826). I have also supported limitations on foreign entities that represent a national security risk obtaining and enforcing U.S. patents (e.g., H.R.9142, the Prohibiting Adversarial Patents Act).

I've lobbied in opposition to creating a presumption of irreparable harm in patent litigation under the RESTORE Patent Rights Act of 2025 (S.708, H.R.1574), against weakening the Patent Trial and Appeal Board through administrative or legislative action (e.g., the PREVAIL Act, H.R.4370, S.2220, S.1553), and against the expansion of patent eligibility in the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (S.2140, H.R.9474, S.1546). I have also supported disclosure of third-party litigation funding (e.g., H.R.1109 and S.3826). I have also supported limitations on foreign entities that represent a national security risk obtaining and enforcing U.S. patents (e.g., H.R.9142, the Prohibiting Adversarial Patents Act).

I've lobbied in opposition to creating a presumption of irreparable harm in patent litigation under the RESTORE Patent Rights Act of 2025 (S.708, H.R.1574), against weakening the Patent Trial and Appeal Board through administrative or legislative action (e.g., the PREVAIL Act, H.R.4370, S.2220, S.1553), and against the expansion of patent eligibility in the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (S.2140, H.R.9474, S.1546). I have also supported disclosure of third-party litigation funding (e.g., H.R.1109 and S.3826). I have also supported limitations on foreign entities that represent a national security risk obtaining and enforcing U.S. patents (e.g., H.R.9142, the Prohibiting Adversarial Patents Act).

I've lobbied in opposition to creating a presumption of irreparable harm in patent litigation under the RESTORE Patent Rights Act of 2025 (S.708, H.R.1574), against weakening the Patent Trial and Appeal Board through administrative or legislative action (e.g., the PREVAIL Act, H.R.4370, S.2220, S.1553), and against the expansion of patent eligibility in the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (S.2140, H.R.9474, S.1546). I have also supported disclosure of third-party litigation funding (e.g., H.R.1109 and S.3826).

I've lobbied in opposition to creating a presumption of irreparable harm in patent litigation under the RESTORE Patent Rights Act of 2025 (S.708, H.R.1574), against weakening the Patent Trial and Appeal Board through administrative or legislative action (e.g., the PREVAIL Act, H.R.4370, S.2220, S.1553), and against the expansion of patent eligibility in the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (S.2140, H.R.9474, S.1546). I have also supported disclosure of third-party litigation funding (e.g., H.R.1109 and S.3826). I have also supported limitations on foreign entities that represent a national security risk obtaining and enforcing U.S. patents (e.g., H.R.9142, the Prohibiting Adversarial Patents Act).

I've lobbied in opposition to creating a presumption of irreparable harm in patent litigation under the RESTORE Patent Rights Act of 2025 (S.708, H.R.1574), against weakening the Patent Trial and Appeal Board through administrative or legislative action (e.g., the PREVAIL Act, H.R.4370, S.2220, S.1553), and against the expansion of patent eligibility in the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (S.2140, H.R.9474, S.1546). I have also supported disclosure of third-party litigation funding (e.g., H.R.1109 and S.3826).

I've lobbied in opposition to creating a presumption of irreparable harm in patent litigation under the RESTORE Patent Rights Act of 2025 (S.708, H.R.1574), against weakening the Patent Trial and Appeal Board through administrative or legislative action (e.g., the PREVAIL Act, H.R.4370, S.2220, S.1553), and against the expansion of patent eligibility in the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (S.2140, H.R.9474, S.1546). I have also supported disclosure of third-party litigation funding (e.g., H.R.1109 and S.3826). I have also supported limitations on foreign entities that represent a national security risk obtaining and enforcing U.S. patents (e.g., H.R.9142, the Prohibiting Adversarial Patents Act).

I've lobbied in opposition to creating a presumption of irreparable harm in patent litigation under the RESTORE Patent Rights Act of 2025 (S.708, H.R.1574), against weakening the Patent Trial and Appeal Board through administrative or legislative action (e.g., the PREVAIL Act, H.R.4370, S.2220, S.1553), and against the expansion of patent eligibility in the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (S.2140, H.R.9474, S.1546). I have also supported disclosure of third-party litigation funding (e.g., H.R.1109 and S.3826).

I've lobbied in opposition to creating a presumption of irreparable harm in patent litigation under the RESTORE Patent Rights Act of 2025 (S.708, H.R.1574), against weakening the Patent Trial and Appeal Board through administrative or legislative action (e.g., the PREVAIL Act, H.R.4370, S.2220, S.1553), and against the expansion of patent eligibility in the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (S.2140, H.R.9474, S.1546). I have also supported disclosure of third-party litigation funding (e.g., H.R.1109 and S.3826). I have also supported limitations on foreign entities that represent a national security risk obtaining and enforcing U.S. patents (e.g., H.R.9142, the Prohibiting Adversarial Patents Act).

I've lobbied in opposition to creating a presumption of irreparable harm in patent litigation under the RESTORE Patent Rights Act of 2025 (S.708, H.R.1574), against weakening the Patent Trial and Appeal Board through administrative or legislative action (e.g., the PREVAIL Act from last Congress, H.R.4370, S.2220), and against the expansion of patent eligibility in the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act from last Congress (S.2140, H.R.9474). I have also supported disclosure of third-party litigation funding in patent cases (e.g., H.R.1109 - Litigation Transparency Act of 2025).

I've lobbied in opposition to creating a presumption of irreparable harm in patent litigation under the RESTORE Patent Rights Act of 2025 (S.708, H.R.1574), against weakening the Patent Trial and Appeal Board through administrative or legislative action (e.g., the PREVAIL Act, H.R.4370, S.2220, S.1553), and against the expansion of patent eligibility in the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (S.2140, H.R.9474, S.1546). I have also supported disclosure of third-party litigation funding (e.g., H.R.1109 and S.3826).

I've lobbied in opposition to creating a presumption of irreparable harm in patent litigation under the RESTORE Patent Rights Act of 2025 (S.708, H.R.1574), against weakening the Patent Trial and Appeal Board through administrative or legislative action (e.g., the PREVAIL Act, H.R.4370, S.2220, S.1553), and against the expansion of patent eligibility in the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (S.2140, H.R.9474, S.1546). I have also supported disclosure of third-party litigation funding (e.g., H.R.1109 and S.3826). I have also supported limitations on foreign entities that represent a national security risk obtaining and enforcing U.S. patents (e.g., H.R.9142, the Prohibiting Adversarial Patents Act).

I've lobbied in opposition to creating a presumption of irreparable harm in patent litigation under the RESTORE Patent Rights Act of 2025 (S.708, H.R.1574), against weakening the Patent Trial and Appeal Board through administrative or legislative action (e.g., the PREVAIL Act, H.R.4370, S.2220, S.1553), and against the expansion of patent eligibility in the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (S.2140, H.R.9474, S.1546). I have also supported disclosure of third-party litigation funding (e.g., H.R.1109 and S.3826).

I've lobbied in opposition to creating a presumption of irreparable harm in patent litigation under the RESTORE Patent Rights Act of 2025 (S.708, H.R.1574), against weakening the Patent Trial and Appeal Board through administrative or legislative action (e.g., the PREVAIL Act, H.R.4370, S.2220, S.1553), and against the expansion of patent eligibility in the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (S.2140, H.R.9474, S.1546). I have also supported disclosure of third-party litigation funding (e.g., H.R.1109 and S.3826). I have also supported limitations on foreign entities that represent a national security risk obtaining and enforcing U.S. patents (e.g., H.R.9142, the Prohibiting Adversarial Patents Act).

I've lobbied in opposition to creating a presumption of irreparable harm in patent litigation under the RESTORE Patent Rights Act of 2025 (S.708, H.R.1574), against weakening the Patent Trial and Appeal Board through administrative or legislative action (e.g., the PREVAIL Act, H.R.4370, S.2220, S.1553), and against the expansion of patent eligibility in the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (S.2140, H.R.9474, S.1546). I have also supported disclosure of third-party litigation funding (e.g., H.R.1109 and S.3826).

I've lobbied in opposition to creating a presumption of irreparable harm in patent litigation under the RESTORE Patent Rights Act of 2025 (S.708, H.R.1574), against weakening the Patent Trial and Appeal Board through administrative or legislative action (e.g., the PREVAIL Act, H.R.4370, S.2220, S.1553), and against the expansion of patent eligibility in the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (S.2140, H.R.9474, S.1546). I have also supported disclosure of third-party litigation funding (e.g., H.R.1109 and S.3826). I have also supported limitations on foreign entities that represent a national security risk obtaining and enforcing U.S. patents (e.g., H.R.9142, the Prohibiting Adversarial Patents Act).

I've lobbied in opposition to creating a presumption of irreparable harm in patent litigation under the RESTORE Patent Rights Act of 2025 (S.708, H.R.1574), against weakening the Patent Trial and Appeal Board through administrative or legislative action (e.g., the PREVAIL Act, H.R.4370, S.2220, S.1553), and against the expansion of patent eligibility in the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (S.2140, H.R.9474, S.1546). I have also supported disclosure of third-party litigation funding (e.g., H.R.1109 and S.3826).

I've lobbied in opposition to creating a presumption of irreparable harm in patent litigation under the RESTORE Patent Rights Act of 2025 (S.708, H.R.1574), against weakening the Patent Trial and Appeal Board through administrative or legislative action (e.g., the PREVAIL Act, H.R.4370, S.2220, S.1553), and against the expansion of patent eligibility in the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (S.2140, H.R.9474, S.1546). I have also supported disclosure of third-party litigation funding (e.g., H.R.1109 and S.3826).

I've lobbied in opposition to creating a presumption of irreparable harm in patent litigation under the RESTORE Patent Rights Act of 2025 (S.708, H.R.1574), against weakening the Patent Trial and Appeal Board through administrative or legislative action (e.g., the PREVAIL Act, H.R.4370, S.2220, S.1553), and against the expansion of patent eligibility in the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (S.2140, H.R.9474, S.1546). I have also supported disclosure of third-party litigation funding (e.g., H.R.1109 and S.3826). I have also supported limitations on foreign entities that represent a national security risk obtaining and enforcing U.S. patents (e.g., H.R.9142, the Prohibiting Adversarial Patents Act).

I've lobbied in opposition to creating a presumption of irreparable harm in patent litigation under the RESTORE Patent Rights Act of 2025 (S.708, H.R.1574), against weakening the Patent Trial and Appeal Board through administrative or legislative action (e.g., the PREVAIL Act from last Congress, H.R.4370, S.2220), and against the expansion of patent eligibility in the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act from last Congress (S.2140, H.R.9474). I have also supported disclosure of third-party litigation funding in patent cases (e.g., H.R.1109 - Litigation Transparency Act of 2025).

I've lobbied in opposition to creating a presumption of irreparable harm in patent litigation under the RESTORE Patent Rights Act of 2025 (S.708, H.R.1574), against weakening the Patent Trial and Appeal Board through administrative or legislative action (e.g., the PREVAIL Act from last Congress, H.R.4370, S.2220), and against the expansion of patent eligibility in the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act from last Congress (S.2140, H.R.9474). I have also supported disclosure of third-party litigation funding in patent cases (e.g., H.R.1109 - Litigation Transparency Act of 2025).

I've lobbied in opposition to creating a presumption of irreparable harm in patent litigation under the RESTORE Patent Rights Act of 2025 (S.708, H.R.1574), against weakening the Patent Trial and Appeal Board through administrative or legislative action (e.g., the PREVAIL Act from last Congress, H.R.4370, S.2220), and against the expansion of patent eligibility in the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act from last Congress (S.2140, H.R.9474).

I've lobbied in opposition to creating a presumption of irreparable harm in patent litigation under the RESTORE Patent Rights Act of 2025 (S.708, H.R.1574), against weakening the Patent Trial and Appeal Board through administrative or legislative action (e.g., the PREVAIL Act from last Congress, H.R.4370, S.2220), and against the expansion of patent eligibility in the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act from last Congress (S.2140, H.R.9474). I have also supported disclosure of third-party litigation funding in patent cases (e.g., H.R.1109 - Litigation Transparency Act of 2025).

I've lobbied in opposition to creating a presumption of irreparable harm in patent litigation under the RESTORE Patent Rights Act of 2025 (S.708, H.R.1574), against weakening the Patent Trial and Appeal Board through administrative or legislative action (e.g., the PREVAIL Act from last Congress, H.R.4370, S.2220), and against the expansion of patent eligibility in the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act from last Congress (S.2140, H.R.9474). I have also supported disclosure of third-party litigation funding in patent cases (e.g., H.R.1109 - Litigation Transparency Act of 2025).

I've lobbied in opposition to creating a presumption of irreparable harm in patent litigation under the RESTORE Patent Rights Act of 2025 (S.708, H.R.1574), against weakening the Patent Trial and Appeal Board through administrative or legislative action (e.g., the PREVAIL Act from last Congress, H.R.4370, S.2220), and against the expansion of patent eligibility in the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act from last Congress (S.2140, H.R.9474). I have also supported disclosure of third-party litigation funding in patent cases (e.g., H.R.1109 - Litigation Transparency Act of 2025).

I've lobbied in opposition to creating a presumption of irreparable harm in patent litigation under the RESTORE Patent Rights Act of 2025 (S.708, H.R.1574), against weakening the Patent Trial and Appeal Board through administrative or legislative action (e.g., the PREVAIL Act from last Congress, H.R.4370, S.2220), and against the expansion of patent eligibility in the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act from last Congress (S.2140, H.R.9474). I have also supported disclosure of third-party litigation funding in patent cases (e.g., H.R.1109 - Litigation Transparency Act of 2025).

I've lobbied in opposition to creating a presumption of irreparable harm in patent litigation under the RESTORE Patent Rights Act of 2025 (S.708, H.R.1574), against weakening the Patent Trial and Appeal Board through administrative or legislative action (e.g., the PREVAIL Act from last Congress, H.R.4370, S.2220), and against the expansion of patent eligibility in the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act from last Congress (S.2140, H.R.9474).

I have discussed patent eligibility issues and potential amendments to 35 USC 101, including S.4734 (the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2022). I have also discussed potential amendments to the inter partes review process (35 USC 311 et seq), including those proposed in previous Congresses, e.g., S.2082 and H.R.3666 (STRONGER Patents Act of 2019). I have also addressed some of the provisions relating to patent litigation contained in these two bills (such as the abrogation of the holding in eBay v. MercExchange). I have discussed discretionary denials of institution by the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB) and potential remedies for the potential Appointments Clause problem for the PTAB, which are addressed in S.2891 (Restoring the America Invents Act). I have also discussed general patent quality issues and the funding of the U.S. Patent and Trademark through fees, which do not relate directly (for now) to any particular bill. I have also discussed the mandatory recordation of patent assignments as addressed in S.2774 (Pride in Patent Ownership Act). Finally, I have discussed efforts to expand innovation and patenting to be more inclusive of persons with diverse backgrounds, including two bills that would authorize the Patent and Trademark Office to collect certain voluntarily-submitted demographic information: e.g., H.R.1723 and S.632 (the IDEA Act) and one that would take a variety of other actions to expand American innovation: S.2773 (Unleashing American Innovators Act of 2021). Additionally, I have advocated against H.R.5874 - the Restoring Americas Leadership in Innovation Act of 2021 and in favor of S.4417 - the Patent Trial and Appeal Board Reform Act of 2022.

I have discussed patent eligibility issues and potential amendments to 35 USC 101, including S.4734 (the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2022). I have also discussed potential amendments to the inter partes review process (35 USC 311 et seq), including those proposed in previous Congresses, e.g., S.2082 and H.R.3666 (STRONGER Patents Act of 2019). I have also addressed some of the provisions relating to patent litigation contained in these two bills (such as the abrogation of the holding in eBay v. MercExchange). I have discussed discretionary denials of institution by the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB) and potential remedies for the potential Appointments Clause problem for the PTAB, which are addressed in S.2891 (Restoring the America Invents Act). I have also discussed general patent quality issues and the funding of the U.S. Patent and Trademark through fees, which do not relate directly (for now) to any particular bill. I have also discussed the mandatory recordation of patent assignments as addressed in S.2774 (Pride in Patent Ownership Act). Finally, I have discussed efforts to expand innovation and patenting to be more inclusive of persons with diverse backgrounds, including two bills that would authorize the Patent and Trademark Office to collect certain voluntarily-submitted demographic information: e.g., H.R.1723 and S.632 (the IDEA Act) and one that would take a variety of other actions to expand American innovation: S.2773 (Unleashing American Innovators Act of 2021). Additionally, I have advocated against H.R.5874 - the Restoring Americas Leadership in Innovation Act of 2021 and in favor of S.4417 - the Patent Trial and Appeal Board Reform Act of 2022.

I have discussed patent eligibility issues and potential amendments to 35 USC 101, including S.4734 (the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2022). I have also discussed potential amendments to the inter partes review process (35 USC 311 et seq), including those proposed in previous Congresses, e.g., S.2082 and H.R.3666 (STRONGER Patents Act of 2019). I have also addressed some of the provisions relating to patent litigation contained in these two bills (such as the abrogation of the holding in eBay v. MercExchange). I have discussed discretionary denials of institution by the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB) and potential remedies for the potential Appointments Clause problem for the PTAB, which are addressed in S.2891 (Restoring the America Invents Act). I have also discussed general patent quality issues and the funding of the U.S. Patent and Trademark through fees, which do not relate directly (for now) to any particular bill. I have also discussed the mandatory recordation of patent assignments as addressed in S.2774 (Pride in Patent Ownership Act). Finally, I have discussed efforts to expand innovation and patenting to be more inclusive of persons with diverse backgrounds, including two bills that would authorize the Patent and Trademark Office to collect certain voluntarily-submitted demographic information: e.g., H.R.1723 and S.632 (the IDEA Act) and one that would take a variety of other actions to expand American innovation: S.2773 (Unleashing American Innovators Act of 2021). Additionally, I have advocated against H.R.5874 - the Restoring Americas Leadership in Innovation Act of 2021 and in favor of S.4417 - the Patent Trial and Appeal Board Reform Act of 2022.

I have discussed patent eligibility issues and potential amendments to 35 USC 101, including S.4734 (the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2022). I have also discussed potential amendments to the inter partes review process (35 USC 311 et seq), including those proposed in previous Congresses, e.g., S.2082 and H.R.3666 (STRONGER Patents Act of 2019). I have also addressed some of the provisions relating to patent litigation contained in these two bills (such as the abrogation of the holding in eBay v. MercExchange). I have discussed discretionary denials of institution by the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB) and potential remedies for the potential Appointments Clause problem for the PTAB, which are addressed in S.2891 (Restoring the America Invents Act). I have also discussed general patent quality issues and the funding of the U.S. Patent and Trademark through fees, which do not relate directly (for now) to any particular bill. I have also discussed the mandatory recordation of patent assignments as addressed in S.2774 (Pride in Patent Ownership Act). Finally, I have discussed efforts to expand innovation and patenting to be more inclusive of persons with diverse backgrounds, including two bills that would authorize the Patent and Trademark Office to collect certain voluntarily-submitted demographic information: e.g., H.R.1723 and S.632 (the IDEA Act) and one that would take a variety of other actions to expand American innovation: S.2773 (Unleashing American Innovators Act of 2021). Additionally, I have advocated against H.R.5874 - the Restoring Americas Leadership in Innovation Act of 2021 and in favor of S.4417 - the Patent Trial and Appeal Board Reform Act of 2022.

I have discussed patent eligibility issues and potential amendments to 35 USC 101, including S.4734 (the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2022). I have also discussed potential amendments to the inter partes review process (35 USC 311 et seq), including those proposed in previous Congresses, e.g., S.2082 and H.R.3666 (STRONGER Patents Act of 2019). I have also addressed some of the provisions relating to patent litigation contained in these two bills (such as the abrogation of the holding in eBay v. MercExchange). I have discussed discretionary denials of institution by the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB) and potential remedies for the potential Appointments Clause problem for the PTAB, which are addressed in S.2891 (Restoring the America Invents Act). I have also discussed general patent quality issues and the funding of the U.S. Patent and Trademark through fees, which do not relate directly (for now) to any particular bill. I have also discussed the mandatory recordation of patent assignments as addressed in S.2774 (Pride in Patent Ownership Act). Finally, I have discussed efforts to expand innovation and patenting to be more inclusive of persons with diverse backgrounds, including two bills that would authorize the Patent and Trademark Office to collect certain voluntarily-submitted demographic information: e.g., H.R.1723 and S.632 (the IDEA Act) and one that would take a variety of other actions to expand American innovation: S.2773 (Unleashing American Innovators Act of 2021). Additionally, I have advocated against H.R.5874 - the Restoring Americas Leadership in Innovation Act of 2021 and in favor of S.4417 - the Patent Trial and Appeal Board Reform Act of 2022.

I have discussed patent eligibility issues and potential amendments to 35 USC 101, including S.4734 (the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2022). I have also discussed potential amendments to the inter partes review process (35 USC 311 et seq), including those proposed in previous Congresses, e.g., S.2082 and H.R.3666 (STRONGER Patents Act of 2019). I have also addressed some of the provisions relating to patent litigation contained in these two bills (such as the abrogation of the holding in eBay v. MercExchange). I have discussed discretionary denials of institution by the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB) and potential remedies for the potential Appointments Clause problem for the PTAB, which are addressed in S.2891 (Restoring the America Invents Act). I have also discussed general patent quality issues and the funding of the U.S. Patent and Trademark through fees, which do not relate directly (for now) to any particular bill. I have also discussed the mandatory recordation of patent assignments as addressed in S.2774 (Pride in Patent Ownership Act). Finally, I have discussed efforts to expand innovation and patenting to be more inclusive of persons with diverse backgrounds, including two bills that would authorize the Patent and Trademark Office to collect certain voluntarily-submitted demographic information: e.g., H.R.1723 and S.632 (the IDEA Act) and one that would take a variety of other actions to expand American innovation: S.2773 (Unleashing American Innovators Act of 2021). Additionally, I have advocated against H.R.5874 - the Restoring Americas Leadership in Innovation Act of 2021 and in favor of S.4417 - the Patent Trial and Appeal Board Reform Act of 2022.

I have discussed patent eligibility issues and potential amendments to 35 USC 101, including S.4734 (the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2022). I have also discussed potential amendments to the inter partes review process (35 USC 311 et seq), including those proposed in last Congress's S.2082 and H.R.3666 (STRONGER Patents Act of 2019). I have also addressed some of the provisions relating to patent litigation contained in these two bills (such as the abrogation of the holding in eBay v. MercExchange). I have discussed discretionary denials of institution by the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB) and potential remedies for the potential Appointments Clause problem for the PTAB, which are addressed in S.2891 (Restoring the America Invents Act). I have also discussed general patent quality issues and the funding of the U.S. Patent and Trademark through fees, which do not relate directly (for now) to any particular bill. I have also discussed the mandatory recordation of patent assignments as addressed in S.2774 (Pride in Patent Ownership Act). Finally, I have discussed efforts to expand innovation and patenting to be more inclusive of persons with diverse backgrounds, including two bills that would authorize the Patent and Trademark Office to collect certain voluntarily-submitted demographic information: H.R.1723 and S.632 (the IDEA Act) and one that would take a variety of other actions to expand American innovation: S.2773 (Unleashing American Innovators Act of 2021). Additionally, I have advocated against H.R.5874 - the Restoring Americas Leadership in Innovation Act of 2021 and in favor of S.4417 - the Patent Trial and Appeal Board Reform Act of 2022.

I have discussed patent eligibility issues and potential amendments to 35 USC 101, including S.4734 (the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2022). I have also discussed potential amendments to the inter partes review process (35 USC 311 et seq), including those proposed in previous Congresses, e.g., S.2082 and H.R.3666 (STRONGER Patents Act of 2019). I have also addressed some of the provisions relating to patent litigation contained in these two bills (such as the abrogation of the holding in eBay v. MercExchange). I have discussed discretionary denials of institution by the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB) and potential remedies for the potential Appointments Clause problem for the PTAB, which are addressed in S.2891 (Restoring the America Invents Act). I have also discussed general patent quality issues and the funding of the U.S. Patent and Trademark through fees, which do not relate directly (for now) to any particular bill. I have also discussed the mandatory recordation of patent assignments as addressed in S.2774 (Pride in Patent Ownership Act). Finally, I have discussed efforts to expand innovation and patenting to be more inclusive of persons with diverse backgrounds, including two bills that would authorize the Patent and Trademark Office to collect certain voluntarily-submitted demographic information: e.g., H.R.1723 and S.632 (the IDEA Act) and one that would take a variety of other actions to expand American innovation: S.2773 (Unleashing American Innovators Act of 2021). Additionally, I have advocated against H.R.5874 - the Restoring Americas Leadership in Innovation Act of 2021 and in favor of S.4417 - the Patent Trial and Appeal Board Reform Act of 2022.

I have discussed patent eligibility issues and potential amendments to 35 USC 101, including S.4734 (the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2022). I have also discussed potential amendments to the inter partes review process (35 USC 311 et seq), including those proposed in previous Congresses, e.g., S.2082 and H.R.3666 (STRONGER Patents Act of 2019). I have also addressed some of the provisions relating to patent litigation contained in these two bills (such as the abrogation of the holding in eBay v. MercExchange). I have discussed discretionary denials of institution by the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB) and potential remedies for the potential Appointments Clause problem for the PTAB, which are addressed in S.2891 (Restoring the America Invents Act). I have also discussed general patent quality issues and the funding of the U.S. Patent and Trademark through fees, which do not relate directly (for now) to any particular bill. I have also discussed the mandatory recordation of patent assignments as addressed in S.2774 (Pride in Patent Ownership Act). Finally, I have discussed efforts to expand innovation and patenting to be more inclusive of persons with diverse backgrounds, including two bills that would authorize the Patent and Trademark Office to collect certain voluntarily-submitted demographic information: e.g., H.R.1723 and S.632 (the IDEA Act) and one that would take a variety of other actions to expand American innovation: S.2773 (Unleashing American Innovators Act of 2021). Additionally, I have advocated against H.R.5874 - the Restoring Americas Leadership in Innovation Act of 2021 and in favor of S.4417 - the Patent Trial and Appeal Board Reform Act of 2022.

I have discussed patent eligibility issues and potential amendments to 35 USC 101, including S.4734 (the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2022). I have also discussed potential amendments to the inter partes review process (35 USC 311 et seq), including those proposed in previous Congresses, e.g., S.2082 and H.R.3666 (STRONGER Patents Act of 2019). I have also addressed some of the provisions relating to patent litigation contained in these two bills (such as the abrogation of the holding in eBay v. MercExchange). I have discussed discretionary denials of institution by the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB) and potential remedies for the potential Appointments Clause problem for the PTAB, which are addressed in S.2891 (Restoring the America Invents Act). I have also discussed general patent quality issues and the funding of the U.S. Patent and Trademark through fees, which do not relate directly (for now) to any particular bill. I have also discussed the mandatory recordation of patent assignments as addressed in S.2774 (Pride in Patent Ownership Act). Finally, I have discussed efforts to expand innovation and patenting to be more inclusive of persons with diverse backgrounds, including two bills that would authorize the Patent and Trademark Office to collect certain voluntarily-submitted demographic information: e.g., H.R.1723 and S.632 (the IDEA Act) and one that would take a variety of other actions to expand American innovation: S.2773 (Unleashing American Innovators Act of 2021). Additionally, I have advocated against H.R.5874 - the Restoring Americas Leadership in Innovation Act of 2021 and in favor of S.4417 - the Patent Trial and Appeal Board Reform Act of 2022.

I have discussed patent eligibility issues and potential amendments to 35 USC 101, including S.4734 (the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2022). I have also discussed potential amendments to the inter partes review process (35 USC 311 et seq), including those proposed in previous Congresses, e.g., S.2082 and H.R.3666 (STRONGER Patents Act of 2019). I have also addressed some of the provisions relating to patent litigation contained in these two bills (such as the abrogation of the holding in eBay v. MercExchange). I have discussed discretionary denials of institution by the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB) and potential remedies for the potential Appointments Clause problem for the PTAB, which are addressed in S.2891 (Restoring the America Invents Act). I have also discussed general patent quality issues and the funding of the U.S. Patent and Trademark through fees, which do not relate directly (for now) to any particular bill. I have also discussed the mandatory recordation of patent assignments as addressed in S.2774 (Pride in Patent Ownership Act). Finally, I have discussed efforts to expand innovation and patenting to be more inclusive of persons with diverse backgrounds, including two bills that would authorize the Patent and Trademark Office to collect certain voluntarily-submitted demographic information: e.g., H.R.1723 and S.632 (the IDEA Act) and one that would take a variety of other actions to expand American innovation: S.2773 (Unleashing American Innovators Act of 2021). Additionally, I have advocated against H.R.5874 - the Restoring Americas Leadership in Innovation Act of 2021 and in favor of S.4417 - the Patent Trial and Appeal Board Reform Act of 2022.

I have discussed patent eligibility issues and potential amendments to 35 USC 101. Members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees have publicly expressed interest in introducing a bill, but no bill has been introduced to date. I have also discussed potential amendments to the inter partes review process (35 USC 311 et seq), including those proposed in last Congress's S.2082 and H.R.3666 (STRONGER Patents Act of 2019). I have also addressed some of the provisions relating to patent litigation contained in these two bills (such as the abrogation of the holding in eBay v. MercExchange). I have discussed discretionary denials of institution by the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB) and potential remedies for the potential Appointments Clause problem for the PTAB, both of which are addressed in S.2891 (Restoring the America Invents Act). I have also discussed general patent quality issues and the funding of the U.S. Patent and Trademark through fees, which do not relate directly (for now) to any particular bill. I have also discussed the mandatory recordation of patent assignments as addressed in S.2774 (Pride in Patent Ownership Act). Finally, I have discussed efforts to expand innovation and patenting to be more inclusive of persons with diverse backgrounds, including two bills that would authorize the Patent and Trademark Office to collect certain voluntarily-submitted demographic information: H.R.1723 and S.632 (the IDEA Act) and one that would take a variety of other actions to expand American innovation: S.2773 (Unleashing American Innovators Act of 2021).

I have discussed patent eligibility issues and potential amendments to 35 USC 101. Members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees have publicly expressed interest in introducing a bill, but no bill has been introduced to date. I have also discussed potential amendments to the inter partes review process (35 USC 311 et seq), including those proposed in last Congress's S.2082 and H.R.3666 (STRONGER Patents Act of 2019). I have also addressed some of the provisions relating to patent litigation contained in these two bills (such as the abrogation of the holding in eBay v. MercExchange). I have discussed discretionary denials of institution by the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB), potential remedies for the potential Appointments Clause problem for the PTAB, and general patent quality issues, which do not relate directly (for now) to any particular bill. Finally, I have discussed efforts to expand innovation and patenting to be more inclusive of persons with diverse backgrounds, including two bills that would authorize the Patent and Trademark Office to collect certain voluntarily-submitted demographic information: H.R.1723 and S.632 (the IDEA Act).

I have discussed patent eligibility issues and potential amendments to 35 USC 101. Members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees have publicly expressed interest in introducing a bill, but no bill has been introduced to date. I have also discussed potential amendments to the inter partes review process (35 USC 311 et seq), including those proposed in last Congress's S.2082 and H.R.3666 (STRONGER Patents Act of 2019). I have also addressed some of the provisions relating to patent litigation contained in these two bills (such as the abrogation of the holding in eBay v. MercExchange). I have discussed discretionary denials of institution by the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB), potential remedies for the potential Appointments Clause problem for the PTAB, and general patent quality issues, which do not relate directly (for now) to any particular bill. Finally, I have discussed efforts to expand innovation and patenting to be more inclusive of persons with diverse backgrounds, including two bills that would authorize the Patent and Trademark Office to collect certain voluntarily-submitted demographic information: H.R.1723 and S.632 (the IDEA Act).

I have discussed patent eligibility issues and potential amendments to 35 USC 101. Members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees have publicly expressed interest in introducing a bill, but no bill has been introduced to date. I have also discussed potential amendments to the inter partes review process (35 USC 311 et seq), including those proposed in last Congress's S.2082 and H.R.3666 (STRONGER Patents Act of 2019). I have also addressed some of the provisions relating to patent litigation contained in these two bills (such as the abrogation of the holding in eBay v. MercExchange). I have discussed discretionary denials of institution by the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB) and potential remedies for the potential Appointments Clause problem for the PTAB, both of which are addressed in S.2891 (Restoring the America Invents Act). I have also discussed general patent quality issues and the funding of the U.S. Patent and Trademark through fees, which do not relate directly (for now) to any particular bill. I have also discussed the mandatory recordation of patent assignments as addressed in S.2774 (Pride in Patent Ownership Act). Finally, I have discussed efforts to expand innovation and patenting to be more inclusive of persons with diverse backgrounds, including two bills that would authorize the Patent and Trademark Office to collect certain voluntarily-submitted demographic information: H.R.1723 and S.632 (the IDEA Act) and one that would take a variety of other actions to expand American innovation: S.2773 (Unleashing American Innovators Act of 2021).

I have discussed patent eligibility issues and potential amendments to 35 USC 101. Members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees have publicly expressed interest in introducing a bill, but no bill has been introduced to date. I have also discussed potential amendments to the inter partes review process (35 USC 311 et seq), including those proposed in last Congress's S.2082 and H.R.3666 (STRONGER Patents Act of 2019). I have also addressed some of the provisions relating to patent litigation contained in these two bills (such as the abrogation of the holding in eBay v. MercExchange). I have discussed discretionary denials of institution by the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB) and potential remedies for the potential Appointments Clause problem for the PTAB, both of which are addressed in S.2891 (Restoring the America Invents Act). I have also discussed general patent quality issues and the funding of the U.S. Patent and Trademark through fees, which do not relate directly (for now) to any particular bill. I have also discussed the mandatory recordation of patent assignments as addressed in S.2774 (Pride in Patent Ownership Act). Finally, I have discussed efforts to expand innovation and patenting to be more inclusive of persons with diverse backgrounds, including two bills that would authorize the Patent and Trademark Office to collect certain voluntarily-submitted demographic information: H.R.1723 and S.632 (the IDEA Act) and one that would take a variety of other actions to expand American innovation: S.2773 (Unleashing American Innovators Act of 2021).

I have discussed patent eligibility issues and potential amendments to 35 USC 101. Members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees have publicly expressed interest in introducing a bill, but no bill has been introduced to date. I have also discussed potential amendments to the inter partes review process (35 USC 311 et seq), including those proposed in last Congress's S.2082 and H.R.3666 (STRONGER Patents Act of 2019). I have also addressed some of the provisions relating to patent litigation contained in these two bills (such as the abrogation of the holding in eBay v. MercExchange). I have discussed discretionary denials of institution by the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB) and potential remedies for the potential Appointments Clause problem for the PTAB, both of which are addressed in S.2891 (Restoring the America Invents Act). I have also discussed general patent quality issues and the funding of the U.S. Patent and Trademark through fees, which do not relate directly (for now) to any particular bill. I have also discussed the mandatory recordation of patent assignments as addressed in S.2774 (Pride in Patent Ownership Act). Finally, I have discussed efforts to expand innovation and patenting to be more inclusive of persons with diverse backgrounds, including two bills that would authorize the Patent and Trademark Office to collect certain voluntarily-submitted demographic information: H.R.1723 and S.632 (the IDEA Act) and one that would take a variety of other actions to expand American innovation: S.2773 (Unleashing American Innovators Act of 2021).

I have discussed patent eligibility issues and potential amendments to 35 USC 101. Members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees have publicly expressed interest in introducing a bill, but no bill has been introduced to date. I have also discussed potential amendments to the inter partes review process (35 USC 311 et seq), including those proposed in last Congress's S.2082 and H.R.3666 (STRONGER Patents Act of 2019). I have also addressed some of the provisions relating to patent litigation contained in these two bills (such as the abrogation of the holding in eBay v. MercExchange). I have discussed discretionary denials of institution by the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB) and potential remedies for the potential Appointments Clause problem for the PTAB, both of which are addressed in S.2891 (Restoring the America Invents Act). I have also discussed general patent quality issues and the funding of the U.S. Patent and Trademark through fees, which do not relate directly (for now) to any particular bill. I have also discussed the mandatory recordation of patent assignments as addressed in S.2774 (Pride in Patent Ownership Act). Finally, I have discussed efforts to expand innovation and patenting to be more inclusive of persons with diverse backgrounds, including two bills that would authorize the Patent and Trademark Office to collect certain voluntarily-submitted demographic information: H.R.1723 and S.632 (the IDEA Act) and one that would take a variety of other actions to expand American innovation: S.2773 (Unleashing American Innovators Act of 2021).

I have discussed patent eligibility issues and potential amendments to 35 USC 101. Members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees have publicly expressed interest in introducing a bill, but no bill has been introduced to date. I have also discussed potential amendments to the inter partes review process (35 USC 311 et seq), including those proposed in last Congress's S.2082 and H.R.3666 (STRONGER Patents Act of 2019). I have also addressed some of the provisions relating to patent litigation contained in these two bills (such as the abrogation of the holding in eBay v. MercExchange). I have discussed discretionary denials of institution by the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB) and potential remedies for the potential Appointments Clause problem for the PTAB, both of which are addressed in S.2891 (Restoring the America Invents Act). I have also discussed general patent quality issues and the funding of the U.S. Patent and Trademark through fees, which do not relate directly (for now) to any particular bill. I have also discussed the mandatory recordation of patent assignments as addressed in S.2774 (Pride in Patent Ownership Act). Finally, I have discussed efforts to expand innovation and patenting to be more inclusive of persons with diverse backgrounds, including two bills that would authorize the Patent and Trademark Office to collect certain voluntarily-submitted demographic information: H.R.1723 and S.632 (the IDEA Act) and one that would take a variety of other actions to expand American innovation: S.2773 (Unleashing American Innovators Act of 2021).

I have discussed patent eligibility issues and potential amendments to 35 USC 101. Members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees have publicly expressed interest in introducing a bill, but no bill has been introduced to date. I have also discussed potential amendments to the inter partes review process (35 USC 311 et seq), including those proposed in last Congress's S.2082 and H.R.3666 (STRONGER Patents Act of 2019). I have also addressed some of the provisions relating to patent litigation contained in these two bills (such as the abrogation of the holding in eBay v. MercExchange). I have discussed discretionary denials of institution by the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB), potential remedies for the potential Appointments Clause problem for the PTAB, and general patent quality issues, which do not relate directly (for now) to any particular bill. Finally, I have discussed efforts to expand innovation and patenting to be more inclusive of persons with diverse backgrounds, including two bills that would authorize the Patent and Trademark Office to collect certain voluntarily-submitted demographic information: H.R.1723 and S.632 (the IDEA Act).

I have discussed patent eligibility issues and potential amendments to 35 USC 101. Members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees have publicly expressed interest in introducing a bill, but no bill has been introduced to date. I have also discussed potential amendments to the inter partes review process (35 USC 311 et seq), including those proposed in last Congress's S.2082 and H.R.3666 (STRONGER Patents Act of 2019). I have also addressed some of the provisions relating to patent litigation contained in these two bills (such as the abrogation of the holding in eBay v. MercExchange). I have discussed discretionary denials of institution by the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB), potential remedies for the potential Appointments Clause problem for the PTAB, and general patent quality issues, which do not relate directly (for now) to any particular bill. Finally, I have discussed efforts to expand innovation and patenting to be more inclusive of persons with diverse backgrounds, including two bills that would authorize the Patent and Trademark Office to collect certain voluntarily-submitted demographic information: H.R.1723 and S.632 (the IDEA Act).

I have discussed patent eligibility issues and potential amendments to 35 USC 101. Members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees have publicly expressed interest in introducing a bill, but no bill has been introduced to date. I have also discussed potential amendments to the inter partes review process (35 USC 311 et seq), including those proposed in S.2082 (A bill to strengthen the position of the United States as the world's leading innovator by amending title 35, United States Code, to protect the property rights of the inventors that grow the country's economy); H.R.3666 (STRONGER Patents Act of 2019). I have also addressed some of the provisions relating to patent litigation contained in these two bills (such as the abrogation of the holding in eBay v. MercExchange); and H.R.5478 (Inventors Rights Act). I have also been involved in discussions of the proper role and policy priorities of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office and its Director. Finally, I have discussed discretionary denials of institution by the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB), potential remedies for the potential Appointments Clause problem for the PTAB, and general patent quality issues, which do not relate directly (for now) to any particular bill.

I have discussed patent eligibility issues and potential amendments to 35 USC 101. Members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees have publicly expressed interest in introducing a bill, but no bill has been introduced to date. I have also discussed potential amendments to the inter partes review process (35 USC 311 et seq), including those proposed in S.2082 (A bill to strengthen the position of the United States as the world's leading innovator by amending title 35, United States Code, to protect the property rights of the inventors that grow the country's economy); H.R.3666 (STRONGER Patents Act of 2019). I have also addressed some of the provisions relating to patent litigation contained in these two bills (such as the abrogation of the holding in eBay v. MercExchange); and H.R.5478 (Inventors Rights Act). Finally, I have discussed discretionary denials of institution by the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB), potential remedies for the potential Appointments Clause problem for the PTAB, and general patent quality issues, which do not relate directly (for now) to any particular bill.

I have discussed patent eligibility issues and potential amendments to 35 USC 101. Members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees have publicly expressed interest in introducing a bill, but no bill has been introduced to date. I have also discussed potential amendments to the inter partes review process (35 USC 311 et seq), including those proposed in S.2082 (A bill to strengthen the position of the United States as the world's leading innovator by amending title 35, United States Code, to protect the property rights of the inventors that grow the country's economy); H.R.3666 (STRONGER Patents Act of 2019). I have also addressed some of the provisions relating to patent litigation contained in these two bills (such as the abrogation of the holding in eBay v. MercExchange); and H.R.5478 (Inventors Rights Act). Finally, I have discussed the general goal of increasing patent quality, which does not relate directly (for now) to any particular bill.

I have discussed patent eligibility issues and potential amendments to 35 USC 101. Members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees have publicly expressed interest in introducing a bill, but no bill has been introduced to date. I have also discussed potential amendments to the inter partes review process (35 USC 311 et seq), including those proposed in S.2082 (A bill to strengthen the position of the United States as the world's leading innovator by amending title 35, United States Code, to protect the property rights of the inventors that grow the country's economy); H.R.3666 (STRONGER Patents Act of 2019). I have also addressed some of the provisions relating to patent litigation contained in these two bills (such as the abrogation of the holding in eBay v. MercExchange); and H.R.5478 (Inventors Rights Act). Finally, I have discussed discretionary denials of institution by the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB), potential remedies for the potential Appointments Clause problem for the PTAB, and general patent quality issues, which do not relate directly (for now) to any particular bill.

I have discussed patent eligibility issues and potential amendments to 35 USC 101. Members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees have publicly expressed interest in introducing a bill, but no bill has been introduced to date. I have also discussed potential amendments to the inter partes review process (35 USC 311 et seq), including those proposed in S.2082 (A bill to strengthen the position of the United States as the world's leading innovator by amending title 35, United States Code, to protect the property rights of the inventors that grow the country's economy); H.R.3666 (STRONGER Patents Act of 2019). I have also addressed some of the provisions relating to patent litigation contained in these two bills (such as the abrogation of the holding in eBay v. MercExchange); and H.R.5478 (Inventors Rights Act). Finally, I have discussed discretionary denials of institution by the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB), potential remedies for the potential Appointments Clause problem for the PTAB, and general patent quality issues, which do not relate directly (for now) to any particular bill.

I have discussed patent eligibility issues and potential amendments to 35 USC 101. Members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees have publicly expressed interest in introducing a bill, but no bill has been introduced to date. I have also discussed potential amendments to the inter partes review process (35 USC 311 et seq), including those proposed in S.2082 (A bill to strengthen the position of the United States as the world's leading innovator by amending title 35, United States Code, to protect the property rights of the inventors that grow the country's economy); H.R.3666 (STRONGER Patents Act of 2019). I have also addressed some of the provisions relating to patent litigation contained in these two bills (such as the abrogation of the holding in eBay v. MercExchange); and H.R.5478 (Inventors Rights Act). Finally, I have discussed discretionary denials of institution by the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB), potential remedies for the potential Appointments Clause problem for the PTAB, and general patent quality issues, which do not relate directly (for now) to any particular bill.

I have discussed patent eligibility issues and potential amendments to 35 USC 101. Members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees have publicly expressed interest in introducing a bill, but no bill has been introduced to date. I have also discussed potential amendments to the inter partes review process (35 USC 311 et seq), including those proposed in S.2082 (A bill to strengthen the position of the United States as the world's leading innovator by amending title 35, United States Code, to protect the property rights of the inventors that grow the country's economy); H.R.3666 (STRONGER Patents Act of 2019). I have also addressed some of the provisions relating to patent litigation contained in these two bills (such as the abrogation of the holding in eBay v. MercExchange); and H.R.5478 (Inventors Rights Act). Finally, I have discussed the general goal of increasing patent quality, which does not relate directly (for now) to any particular bill.

I have discussed patent eligibility issues and potential amendments to 35 USC 101. Members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees have publicly expressed interest in introducing a bill, but no bill has been introduced to date. I have also discussed potential amendments to the inter partes review process (35 USC 311 et seq), including those proposed in S.2082 (A bill to strengthen the position of the United States as the world's leading innovator by amending title 35, United States Code, to protect the property rights of the inventors that grow the country's economy); H.R.3666 (STRONGER Patents Act of 2019). I have also addressed some of the provisions relating to patent litigation contained in these two bills (such as the abrogation of the holding in eBay v. MercExchange); and H.R.5478 (Inventors Rights Act). I have also been involved in discussions of the proper role and policy priorities of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office and its Director. Finally, I have discussed discretionary denials of institution by the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB), potential remedies for the potential Appointments Clause problem for the PTAB, and general patent quality issues, which do not relate directly (for now) to any particular bill.

I have discussed patent eligibility issues and potential amendments to 35 USC 101. Members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees have publicly expressed interest in introducing a bill, but no bill has been introduced to date. I have also discussed potential amendments to the inter partes review process (35 USC 311 et seq), including those proposed in S.2082 (A bill to strengthen the position of the United States as the world's leading innovator by amending title 35, United States Code, to protect the property rights of the inventors that grow the country's economy); H.R.3666 (STRONGER Patents Act of 2019). I have also addressed some of the provisions relating to patent litigation contained in these two bills (such as the abrogation of the holding in eBay v. MercExchange); and H.R.5478 (Inventors Rights Act). Finally, I have discussed discretionary denials of institution by the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB), potential remedies for the potential Appointments Clause problem for the PTAB, and general patent quality issues, which do not relate directly (for now) to any particular bill.

I have discussed patent eligibility issues and potential amendments to 35 USC 101. Members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees have publicly expressed interest in introducing a bill, but no bill has been introduced to date. I have also discussed potential amendments to the inter partes review process (35 USC 311 et seq), including those proposed in S.2082 (A bill to strengthen the position of the United States as the world's leading innovator by amending title 35, United States Code, to protect the property rights of the inventors that grow the country's economy); H.R.3666 (STRONGER Patents Act of 2019). I have also addressed some of the provisions relating to patent litigation contained in these two bills (such as the abrogation of the holding in eBay v. MercExchange); and H.R.5478 (Inventors Rights Act). Finally, I have discussed the general goal of increasing patent quality, which does not relate directly (for now) to any particular bill.

I have discussed patent eligibility issues and potential amendments to 35 USC 101. Members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees have publicly expressed interest in introducing a bill, but no bill has been introduced to date. I have also discussed potential amendments to the inter partes review process (35 USC 311 et seq), including those proposed in S.2082 (A bill to strengthen the position of the United States as the world's leading innovator by amending title 35, United States Code, to protect the property rights of the inventors that grow the country's economy); H.R.3666 (STRONGER Patents Act of 2019). I have also addressed some of the provisions relating to patent litigation contained in these two bills (such as the abrogation of the holding in eBay v. MercExchange); and H.R.5478 (Inventors Rights Act). Finally, I have discussed discretionary denials of institution by the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB), potential remedies for the potential Appointments Clause problem for the PTAB, and general patent quality issues, which do not relate directly (for now) to any particular bill.

I have discussed patent eligibility issues and potential amendments to 35 USC 101. Members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees have publicly expressed interest in introducing a bill, but no bill has been introduced to date. I have also discussed potential amendments to the inter partes review process (35 USC 311 et seq), including those proposed in S.2082 (A bill to strengthen the position of the United States as the world's leading innovator by amending title 35, United States Code, to protect the property rights of the inventors that grow the country's economy); H.R.3666 (STRONGER Patents Act of 2019). I have also addressed some of the provisions relating to patent litigation contained in these two bills (such as the abrogation of the holding in eBay v. MercExchange); and H.R.5478 (Inventors Rights Act). I have also been involved in discussions of the proper role and policy priorities of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office and its Director. Finally, I have discussed discretionary denials of institution by the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB), potential remedies for the potential Appointments Clause problem for the PTAB, and general patent quality issues, which do not relate directly (for now) to any particular bill.

I have discussed patent eligibility issues and potential amendments to 35 USC 101. Members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees have publicly expressed interest in introducing a bill, but no bill has been introduced to date. I have also discussed potential amendments to the inter partes review process (35 USC 311 et seq), including those proposed in S.2082 (A bill to strengthen the position of the United States as the world's leading innovator by amending title 35, United States Code, to protect the property rights of the inventors that grow the country's economy); H.R.3666 (STRONGER Patents Act of 2019). I have also addressed some of the provisions relating to patent litigation contained in these two bills (such as the abrogation of the holding in eBay v. MercExchange); and H.R.5478 (Inventors Rights Act). Finally, I have discussed the general goal of increasing patent quality, which does not relate directly (for now) to any particular bill.

I have principally discussed patent eligibility issues and potential amendments to 35 USC 101. Members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees have publicly expressed interest in introducing a bill, but no bill has been introduced to date. I have also discussed potential amendments to the inter partes review process (35 USC 311 et seq), including those proposed in S.2082 (A bill to strengthen the position of the United States as the world's leading innovator by amending title 35, United States Code, to protect the property rights of the inventors that grow the country's economy) and H.R.3666 (STRONGER Patents Act of 2019). I have also addressed some of the provisions relating to patent litigation contained in these two bills (such as the abrogation of the holding in eBay v. MercExchange). Finally, I have discussed the general goal of increasing patent quality, which does not relate directly (for now) to any particular bill.

I have principally discussed patent eligibility issues and potential amendments to 35 USC 101. Members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees have publicly expressed interest in introducing a bill, but no bill has been introduced to date. I have also discussed potential amendments to the inter partes review process (35 USC 311 et seq), including those proposed in S.2082 (A bill to strengthen the position of the United States as the world's leading innovator by amending title 35, United States Code, to protect the property rights of the inventors that grow the country's economy) and H.R.3666 (STRONGER Patents Act of 2019). I have also addressed some of the provisions relating to patent litigation contained in these two bills (such as the abrogation of the holding in eBay v. MercExchange). Finally, I have discussed the general goal of increasing patent quality, which does not relate directly (for now) to any particular bill.

I have principally discussed patent eligibility issues and potential amendments to 35 USC 101. Members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees have publicly expressed interest in introducing a bill, but no bill has been introduced to date. I have also discussed potential amendments to the inter partes review process (35 USC 311 et seq), including those proposed in S.2082 (A bill to strengthen the position of the United States as the world's leading innovator by amending title 35, United States Code, to protect the property rights of the inventors that grow the country's economy) and H.R.3666 (STRONGER Patents Act of 2019). I have also addressed some of the provisions relating to patent litigation contained in these two bills (such as the abrogation of the holding in eBay v. MercExchange). Finally, I have discussed the general goal of increasing patent quality, which does not relate directly (for now) to any particular bill.

I have discussed patent eligibility issues and potential amendments to 35 USC 101. Members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees have publicly expressed interest in introducing a bill, but no bill has been introduced to date. I have also discussed potential amendments to the inter partes review process (35 USC 311 et seq), including those proposed in S.2082 (A bill to strengthen the position of the United States as the world's leading innovator by amending title 35, United States Code, to protect the property rights of the inventors that grow the country's economy); H.R.3666 (STRONGER Patents Act of 2019). I have also addressed some of the provisions relating to patent litigation contained in these two bills (such as the abrogation of the holding in eBay v. MercExchange); and H.R.5478 (Inventors Rights Act). Finally, I have discussed the general goal of increasing patent quality, which does not relate directly (for now) to any particular bill.

I have principally discussed patent eligibility issues and potential amendments to 35 USC 101. Members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees have publicly expressed interest in introducing a bill, but no bill has been introduced to date. I have also discussed potential amendments to the inter partes review process (35 USC 311 et seq), including those proposed in S.2082 (A bill to strengthen the position of the United States as the world's leading innovator by amending title 35, United States Code, to protect the property rights of the inventors that grow the country's economy) and H.R.3666 (STRONGER Patents Act of 2019). I have also addressed some of the provisions relating to patent litigation contained in these two bills (such as the abrogation of the holding in eBay v. MercExchange). Finally, I have discussed the general goal of increasing patent quality, which does not relate directly (for now) to any particular bill.

I have principally discussed patent eligibility issues and potential amendments to 35 USC 101. Members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees have publicly expressed interest in introducing a bill, but no bill has been introduced to date. I have also discussed potential amendments to the inter partes review process (35 USC 311 et seq), including those proposed in S.2082 (A bill to strengthen the position of the United States as the world's leading innovator by amending title 35, United States Code, to protect the property rights of the inventors that grow the country's economy) and H.R.3666 (STRONGER Patents Act of 2019). I have also addressed some of the provisions relating to patent litigation contained in these two bills (such as the abrogation of the holding in eBay v. MercExchange). Finally, I have discussed the general goal of increasing patent quality, which does not relate directly (for now) to any particular bill.

I have discussed patent eligibility issues and potential amendments to 35 USC 101. Members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees have publicly expressed interest in introducing a bill, but no bill has been introduced to date. I have also discussed potential amendments to the inter partes review process (35 USC 311 et seq), including those proposed in S.2082 (A bill to strengthen the position of the United States as the world's leading innovator by amending title 35, United States Code, to protect the property rights of the inventors that grow the country's economy); H.R.3666 (STRONGER Patents Act of 2019). I have also addressed some of the provisions relating to patent litigation contained in these two bills (such as the abrogation of the holding in eBay v. MercExchange); and H.R.5478 (Inventors Rights Act). Finally, I have discussed the general goal of increasing patent quality, which does not relate directly (for now) to any particular bill.

I have principally discussed patent eligibility issues and potential amendments to 35 USC 101. Members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees have publicly expressed interest in introducing a bill, but no bill has been introduced to date. I have also discussed potential amendments to the inter partes review process (35 USC 311 et seq), including those proposed in S.2082 (A bill to strengthen the position of the United States as the world's leading innovator by amending title 35, United States Code, to protect the property rights of the inventors that grow the country's economy) and H.R.3666 (STRONGER Patents Act of 2019). I have also addressed some of the provisions relating to patent litigation contained in these two bills (such as the abrogation of the holding in eBay v. MercExchange). Finally, I have discussed the general goal of increasing patent quality, which does not relate directly (for now) to any particular bill.