Support the ‘Innovation Restoration Act of 2023’

“With bipartisan support and presidential backing, the authority of district court judges to exercise their traditional equitable functions to protect inventors from predatory infringement should be restored—this year.”

Innovation Restoration ActOn April 18, 2023, Senator Chris Coons (D-Del), Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, and Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC), Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, convened a substantive bipartisan hearing to discuss how to address “Foreign Competitive Threats to American Innovation and Economic Leadership.” Significantly, Chairman Coons asked Mark Cohen, Director and Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Berkeley Center for Law & Technology, the about the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision in eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006), which Chairman Coons observed, “made it difficult to get injunction relief in terms of strengthening the fundamental rights of patent holders.” Director Cohen, who previously worked for over 15 years both at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and State Department in China on IP issues, responded that Chinese courts “automatically” grant injunctions at an astounding 95% rate, which puts U.S. companies at a “comparative disadvantage” in the global marketplace, since injunctions are “extremely valuable “to global resolution” of patent infringement disputes. Chairman Coons pressed Director Cohen further: “Would having a restored right to an injunction or an assumption to injunctive relief in the United States help balance that out?” Director Cohen replied with enthusiasm: “The availability of a preliminary injunction could certainly help in that regard.” We agree!

Preliminary Injunctions Enabled U.S. Inventors to Protect Their Inventions Until the 2006 eBay Decision

Intel was founded in 1968, Microsoft in 1975, Apple in 1976, Oracle in 1977, Cisco and Dell in 1984, Qualcomm in 1985, and Google in 1998. Each is now a world class technology company that benefited from the critical “growing space” essential to develop its products and build a customer base. They did so with the benefit of their rivals knowing that if they dared engage in patent infringement, federal courts could be relied on to enter preliminary injunctions to protect the status quo. As former Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Paul Michel, has commented at numerous IPWatchdog conferences and elsewhere, prior to the eBay decision, after a preliminary injunction was entered by a district court, the underlying dispute almost always was settled by a commercial license agreement, avoiding the significant financial cost and business disruption of years of litigation. As a result of this predictable and reliable legal environment, innovative companies had the opportunity to scale, build, network from mutually beneficial business relationships, and eventually access public markets to obtain the vast amount of capital needed to expand internationally and weather inevitable economic downturns.

The eBay Decision Has Harmed U.S. Innovators and Innovation

Notably, the majority opinion in eBay holds that a federal court considering whether to issue an injunction in a patent infringement case must apply the four-factor test “traditionally employed by courts of equity.” Id at 390. Subsequently, however, the lower courts have bypassed balancing these factors and instead have concluded that the “public interest factor” cannot be satisfied, citing  Justice Kennedy’s concurring view that “legal damages may well be sufficient to compensate for infringement.” Id. at 396-97. This self-described “observation,” without any record evidence, unfortunately has become the raison d’etre for denying independent inventors speedy justice and the public the benefits of innovation. Moreover, many of the multi-billion-dollar technology firms that argued as amici in eBay about the evils of “sophisticated professional patent litigants” ironically have assumed that role themselves. As a result, after eBay, independent inventors have not been able to depend on the federal courts to issue preliminary injunctions to stop what economists have identified as “efficient infringement” i.e., where a dominant firm deliberately elects to infringe a patent knowing the owner cannot afford to litigate. See Aaron Tilley, “When Apple Comes Calling, ‘It’s the Kiss of Death.’” Wall Street Journal (April 20, 2023). A March 31, 2023, report, prepared at the request of the Senate Judiciary Committee by the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS), characterized the cost of patent litigation today as “bracing.” In support, the ACUS  cited the most recent American Intellectual Property Law Association Report of the Economic Survey 79 (2021), showing that, from 2012 to 2020, litigants spent a median of $300,000 to $400,000 per side to litigate a patent case just to claim construction, before significant discovery, expert reports, and trial—even when less than $1 million was at risk. When $25 million or more was at stake, litigation costs for each side for the same period ran $2.125-$3 million or approximately 8.5%-12% of the amount at risk. The ACUS Report also cited a 2019 academic study concluding that of the mere 4.25% of patent cases litigated through trial  during 2005-2010,   it was “noteworthy that 55% of (those) cases  resulted in damage awards of less than $1 million and 75% of such cases involved awards of less than $10 million.” Another academic study reported that from 2019 to 2021, damage awards did not exceed $15 million. Therefore, it is easy to see  why “efficient infringement” is a rational and potentially lucrative business strategy for a company with deep pockets; but it is indeed ironic that such unjust conduct has been fueled by the Supreme Court’s failure in eBay to appreciate the reality that obtaining damages is a very remote, if not illusory, remedy for patent infringement.

President Biden and Key Republican Congressional Leaders Have Touted the Importance of Incumbent Innovators

A January 11, 2023, Wall Street Journal op-ed titled “Republicans and Democrats, Unite Against Big Tech Abuses” observed:  “The next generation of great American companies shouldn’t be smothered by the dominant incumbents before they have a chance to get off the ground.” The author of this article is the President of the United States, Joe Biden. Many prominent Republicans, including Senators Charles Grassley (R-IA), John Cornyn (R-TX), Tom Cotton (R-AR) and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), have spoken with passion about the importance of small business innovation in the continued success of our economy and competitiveness. Congressman Jim Jordan (R-OH), the new Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, is certainly no fan of “Big Tech” and several of his Committee members have small business backgrounds, including Congressman Tom Massie (R-KY), an independent inventor and owner of numerous patents.

A Simple, Bipartisan Fix is at Hand

Therefore, a bipartisan, one-sentence bill should be introduced in the House and Senate Judiciary Committees that states: “Where any person or entity induces infringement of a U.S. patent, irreparable harm will be presumed to support issuance of a preliminary injunction where the plaintiff can establish: (1) it will suffer irreparable harm, in the absence of such relief; (2) the balance of hardships favors such relief; and (3) the public interest will be harmed if injunctive relief is not granted.” The title would be: “The Innovation Restoration Act of 2023.”

This statute would simply be a restatement of the “traditional “equitable factor test and retains the burden of proof on the patent owner seeking a preliminary injunction. But what about so-called “trolls” or opportunistic foreign litigants? A federal district court has ample authority to ascertain whether a plaintiff satisfies that “public interest” requirement, among which relevant factors may be whether the patent holder is a U.S. citizen or entity and the likelihood the patent is or can be readily reduced to practice and benefit the public.

With bipartisan support and presidential backing, the authority of district court judges to exercise their traditional equitable functions to protect inventors from predatory infringement should be restored—this year. As recent testimony before the Senate IP Subcommittee, building on a March 8, 2023, hearing before the House Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet, evidenced, time is of the essence.


Image Source: Deposit Photos
Image ID: 6496641
Copyright: stuartmiles 


Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles and comments on do not constitute legal advice, nor do they create any attorney-client relationship. The articles published express the personal opinion and views of the author as of the time of publication and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of

Join the Discussion

8 comments so far.

  • [Avatar for Nick Huz]
    Nick Huz
    April 28, 2023 10:11 am

    Today, the United States is forced to compete with countries with low respect for intellectual property but significant resources. This makes the competition unfair and unequal. While American innovators are investing in developing, patenting, researching, and launching products, some foreign companies are making quick money by copying successful products. The American market needs to popularize and improve the rapid implementation of innovations (e.g., through licensing), and the government needs to offer a new model of intellectual property protection to replace the existing one, which is expensive, inert, sluggish, and vulnerable to patent trolls or “efficient infringement.” It seems that the Innovation Restoration Act of 2023 is only one of the first steps to be taken.

  • [Avatar for Anon]
    April 28, 2023 07:17 am

    Mr. Lewis,

    I would hesitate to accept partial relief while Efficient Infringers are so busy building huge wooden horses.

    Sometimes aiming for perfect is the enemy of the good.

    This is not such a case here.

  • [Avatar for Pro Say]
    Pro Say
    April 27, 2023 06:01 pm

    What jacek said.

    This is legislative shiny-new-toy misdirection designed to weaken a comprehensive restoration of ALL patent rights.

    “also getting something is better than getting nothing”

    David, NOT when that something — as here — could result in getting nothing . . . else . . . that American innovation desperately needs.

  • [Avatar for David Lewis]
    David Lewis
    April 27, 2023 01:34 pm

    To Jacek, although there is much else that needs correcting injunctive relief is likely the most important item to correct, because it give real teeth to patents (also getting something is better than getting nothing).

  • [Avatar for jacek]
    April 27, 2023 12:39 pm

    United Inventors Association is a Trojan Horse financed by Google and Apple etc. By producing a list of various INDEPENDENT local inventors organizations on their website, they falsely pose as a main Organization uniting them.
    Look at the list of their financial contributors.
    They represent the interest of BIG TECH.
    And operate from PO BOX in a prestigious location.
    For me, this article is an attempt to control the damage done by the USinventor(.org) campaign to restore inventors’ rights and promotion of “Restoring America’s Leadership in Innovation Act” (RALIA), H.R. 5874 by Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY).
    The authors promote a limited fix competing with Rep Thomas Massie’s “RALIA Act.”
    And they are using a similar name for their fix to confuse supporters of the Thomas Massie bill.
    Restoring the Injunction alone? What about the rest of the legislative and Courts invented garbage polluting the earth?
    Thomas Massie’s bill aims to restore I.P. legislation to the point before the EBAY and undo years of Big Tech efforts to eliminate competition and damage U.S. innovation.

  • [Avatar for Model 101]
    Model 101
    April 27, 2023 10:46 am

    Great idea!!!

    Alice should be reformed retroactively as well this year.

    That would put a stake in the heart of efficient infringement.

    Make HR 5874 retroactive and let’s start over.

  • [Avatar for Schumann]
    April 27, 2023 08:25 am

    This does nothing to restore private rights of the patent holders which SCOTUS converted to public rights in which rendered all American patents worthless and unenforcible.

  • [Avatar for B]
    April 27, 2023 08:03 am

    Evert time the S.Ct. touches patent law they screw it up