The IP Legislation That Shaped 2025 and Prospects for the New Year

As 2025 draws to a close, the intellectual property ecosystem faces a wave of transformative changes driven by artificial intelligence (AI) and evolving legislative priorities. From sweeping federal proposals aimed at harmonizing AI governance and overriding state laws, to new copyright and media integrity measures designed to address deepfakes and transparency, and finally to renewed momentum behind patent eligibility and Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) reform, these developments signal a pivotal moment for innovators, rights holders, and policymakers alike. This article explores three critical fronts shaping the future of IP: federal AI legislation and executive preemption, copyright accountability and media integrity, and the year-end outlook for patent reform—each redefining the balance between innovation, protection, and compliance.

New Federal Bills Target AI Infrastructure, Content Integrity, and Accountability Standards

The TAKE IT DOWN Act (Pub. Law 119-12, S.146), introduced by Rep. Salazar (R-FL) in the House and Sen. Cruz in the Senate (R-TX), and signed into law in May, criminalizes nonconsensual intimate visual imagery (including deepfakes) and requires platforms to remove reported content within 48 hours, creating a parallel regime alongside the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and demanding detection, logging, and appeals workflows for handling both copyright infringement claims and nonconsensual intimate imagery violations, each with distinct procedural requirements and timelines.

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026 (S. 1071) (NDAA), the blueprint for U.S. defense priorities and military policy for the year ahead that sets policies and authorizes funding levels for U.S. defense and national security programs. It does not directly allocate money—that happens through separate appropriations bills—but it establishes what the Department of Defense (DoD), military construction, and related agencies are allowed to do in the upcoming fiscal year. On December 7, 2025, the text of the NDAA was released that includes, for example, a provision requiring that biological data from fully DoD-funded research to be stored in a way that enables access by AI. Also, the AI Governance in Intelligence Authorization of the NDAA requires intelligence agencies to implement AI testing standards and secure environments, which could set benchmarks impacting IP compliance and protection of AI-related patents and trade secrets. Further, the NDAA’s definitions of “Covered Entity” and “covered artificial intelligence and machine learning technology” for AI/ML Development mandates DoD contractors to disclose detailed AI system, algorithm, and dataset information, potentially limiting trade secret protections and necessitating careful IP structuring in contracts.

The SandBox Act (S.2750), introduced by Sen. Cruz (R-TX), establishes a regulatory framework that allows AI developers to test and deploy technologies without being constrained by outdated federal rules. The bill directs OSTP to coordinate agency reviews of waiver requests and requires regular congressional reporting. Rep. Obernolte (R-CA) announced that he is working on a House companion bill to the SandBox act.

The CREATE AI Act of 2025 (H.R.2385), introduced in March by Rep. Obernolte (R-CA), accumulated bipartisan co-sponsors, and referred to the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, where it’s currently pending. The bill would establish the National Artificial Intelligence Research Resource (NAIRR) — a shared national compute-and-data platform, making access to computational resources for AI purposes to be available for numerous parties. When researchers from multiple institutions use shared computational resources and datasets, traditional approaches may become inadequate for determining inventorship, Bayh?Dole obligations, and confidentiality in a multi-institution environment.

The QUIET Act (H.R.1027), introduced in February by Rep. Sorensen (D-IL), accumulated bipartisan co-sponsors, and referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce (pending). The bill would require up-front disclosure when AI emulates a human voice or generates a message and would double penalties for AI impersonation. The bill’s intersection with IP may become complex when considering celebrity voices or other distinctive vocal characteristics that may raise Lanham Act false endorsement and state right?of?publicity concerns for synthetic voice use.

The AI Accountability Act (H.R.1694), introduced in February by Rep. Harder (D-CA), this bill was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce (pending). The bill directs the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to study and recommend accountability measures (e.g., audits, assessments, certifications) and transparency for AI systems, including information about models, architecture, training data, performance, and limitations. Similar to the NDAA’s AI-disclosure requirements, NTIA’s accountability framework may require companies to develop tiered disclosure approaches that satisfy accountability expectations without exposing crown?jewel trade secrets.

The Consumer Safety Technology Act (H.R.1770), sponsored by Rep. Soto (D-FL), this bill passed the House in July, and was referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, where it is pending. This bill directs the Consumer Product Safety Commission to establish a pilot program using artificial intelligence for consumer protection while tasking the Commerce Department with studying blockchain applications for product safety, potentially raising novel IP questions around tokenized assets, provenance marking, and brand integrity, and — given federal support — potential Bayh?Dole obligations for inventions arising from pilot activities.

Potential For Executive Preemption: Federal Override of State AI Laws

An Executive Order titled “Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence” signals a major federal push to override state AI regulations. The order cites Colorado’s AI law as an example of a fragmented landscape that could hinder national competitiveness. The EO would centralize AI governance through several mechanisms. First, it proposes an AI Litigation Task Force under the Attorney General to challenge state laws in federal court on grounds such as interstate commerce and preemption—potentially setting new precedents for executive authority over emerging technologies. Second, it introduces financial leverage by directing the Commerce Department to consider withholding federal funds, including broadband grants, from states with conflicting AI rules.

Additionally, the EO tasks federal agencies with creating national standards that preempt state requirements. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) would issue policy statements clarifying how its authority over unfair or deceptive practices applies to AI systems, while the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) would help establish uniform compliance frameworks. These steps could effectively displace state mandates on disclosures, risk assessments, or content moderation.

New Federal Bills Aim to Boost Copyright Accountability

In parallel with AI governance efforts, a suite of copyright bills introduced and reintroduced in 2025 underscores growing concern over content integrity and fair compensation for creators. These initiatives span transparency mandates for AI developers, anti-piracy enforcement against foreign actors, and new protections for voice, likeness, and artistic works.

AI Transparency and Foreign Anti-Piracy Measures

The TRAIN Act (S.2455), introduced on July 24, 2025, by Senator Peter Welch (D-VT), Senators Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Josh Hawley (R-MO), and Adam Schiff (D-CA), the legislation has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Training and Reporting of Artificial Intelligence Networks (TRAIN) Act would establish an administrative subpoena process allowing copyright owners to access AI training records to determine whether their works were used in training AI models. Non-compliance triggers a rebuttable presumption of copying. This rebuttable presumption for non-compliance incentivizes transparency and is expected to accelerate licensing negotiations between AI companies and rights holders.

The FADPA Act (H.R.791), introduced on January 28, 2025, by Representative Zoe Lofgren (D–CA), the Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act (FADPA) has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee. FADPA would amend Title 17 to establish a judicial process allowing copyright owners and exclusive licensees to petition U.S. district courts for blocking orders against foreign websites or online services engaged in large-scale copyright infringement. The legislation requires clear evidence and due process before issuing preliminary and permanent blocking orders, aiming to curb offshore piracy while safeguarding lawful content and First Amendment rights. By creating a narrowly tailored enforcement mechanism and shielding service providers from liability for good-faith compliance, FADPA seeks to protect U.S. creators, reduce economic harm, and strengthen international anti-piracy measures.

Copyright Bills Reintroduced in 2025 Continue Efforts to Tackle AI Risks, Media Integrity, and Fair Pay for Creators

The NO FAKES Act (H.R.2794 / S.1367), previously introduced in 2024, and reintroduced April 2025, responds to concerns over unauthorized digital replicas of voice and likeness. Building on U.S. Copyright Office recommendations, it would create a federal right protecting individuals against unlicensed AI-generated imitations, with civil remedies and platform obligations such as takedown systems and repeat-infringer policies. The reintroduced Act expands enforcement with subpoena powers, mandates proactive upload filtering through digital fingerprinting, and broadens platform liability with stricter compliance and civil penalties. Key debates center on preemption of state publicity laws and platform safe harbors. This bill has bipartisan support from both the House and Senate, as well as a broad range of industry supporters, which not only includes the Motion Picture Association (MPA), Recording Academy, and Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), among numerous others, but also includes OpenAI, Google, and Amazon.

The COPIED Act (S.1396), previously introduced in 2024 and reintroduced April 2025, would strengthen media integrity by mandating content provenance standards and watermarking for AI-generated material under NIST guidance. It would prohibit removal of provenance data and include public education measures. Compared to earlier versions, the 2025 bill emphasizes cybersecurity safeguards and enforcement, potentially creating significant compliance requirements for platforms and AI developers.

American Music Fairness Act (H.R.861 / S.326), reintroduced in January 2025, would extend public performance rights for sound recordings to terrestrial radio for the first time. It introduces Copyright Royalty Board-set rates and tiered flat-fee options for small broadcasters, aiming to harmonize treatment between analog and digital transmissions. Broadcasters face potential revenue disruptions and statutory damages for non-compliance. With the testimony from Gene Simmons before the Senate Judiciary Committee and the disruptive changes proposed by this legislation, this high-profile bill remains one to watch in 2026.

American Royalties Too (ART) Act (H.R.4017), reintroduced June 2025, proposes resale royalties for visual artists on secondary sales, aligning U.S. law with international norms. It would establish defined rates, thresholds, and collection mechanisms through artist societies, imposing new obligations on art market professionals.

2025 Patent Legislation Year-end Outlook

The overriding narrative in patent policy is the unprecedented and continued momentum behind Congressional efforts to clarify and strengthen U.S. patent rights. While the legislative landscape often moves at a glacial pace, this past year saw real progress on reforms to eligibility and the PTAB, setting the stage for a dramatic 2026.

The Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA) and the Promoting and Respecting Economically Vital American Innovation Leadership (PREVAIL) Act remain the central pillars of this effort. IPWatchdog has published extensive coverage on both bills (see: PERA 2025: The Final Push for Eligibility Clarity and PREVAIL’s Path Through the Senate: Key Amendments), but the significance of their movement cannot be overstated.

The progress is not accidental. For an insider’s view on the legislative strategy and momentum behind these critical bills, we spoke with Peter-Anthony Pappas, Director of Intellectual Property Policy for the Senate Judiciary Committee under Senator Tillis. In this capacity, he advises on all intellectual property legislation and policy and stresses the importance of the legislation. “For our great country to maintain its well-earned titles as the world’s innovation and IP rights leader, it’s absolutely critical to ensure that we foster strong, clear, reliable, and predictable U.S. IP rights across all branches of government,” Pappas said.

Pappas highlighted the dedication of the Senate IP Subcommittee: “It’s one thing to talk about the need for reform and another thing entirely to actually do something about it. Senator Tillis [R-NC], Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on IP, not only talks the talk, but he also walks the walk.” This is no more evident than the Senator’s continued “unwavering leadership in pushing for patent eligibility and PTAB reform through Congress.” Pappas emphasized that “These reforms are essential and they must be firmly embedded in law.”

Pappas noted a significant milestone from the last Congress: “Last Congress we saw PREVAIL make it to and out of markup. I cannot tell you how many folks – both for and against PREVAIL – told me that such was not possible. Well, it happened under the leadership of Senators Tillis and [Chris] Coons [D-DE].” He added that PERA just barely missed making it to markup. “The plan this Congress remains the same as last Congress—to bring both PERA and PREVAIL to and out of markup,” Pappas said. “And there is current talk about holding a full Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on PERA,” he added.

The push for clarity is further bolstered by the USPTO, with Pappas observing the unique alignment between the branches: “The Director of the USPTO has made great strides in trumpeting the need for patent eligibility and PTAB reforms.” He shared, “This is why the Senator was the very first in Congress to support Director Squires.”

Pappas noted, “In terms of trumpeting the importance of eligibility reform, I have not seen such attempts from the executive branch since my days working alongside former Director Iancu when we developed the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance or ‘PEG.’” He concluded by stating, “Just think what could be accomplished this Congress with the executive and legislative branches working together when it comes to patent eligibility and PTAB reform.”

Pappas noted the risks posed by some stakeholders to the success of the reforms: “There are some on the pro-patent pro-reform side who are allowing the ‘perfect’ – or at least what they believe is the ‘perfect’ – to be the enemy of the good.” He lamented that, “Sadly, all they’re doing is aiding those who want to see these reforms fail. It really is that simple.”

Beyond PERA and PREVAIL, practitioners should keep an eye on other influential patent measures. The RESTORE Patent Rights Act, which seeks to reinstate a rebuttable presumption of injunctive relief for patent holders, continues its slow but steady path. Additionally, other sector-specific bills, such as the ETHICS Act aimed at limiting repetitive assertions of drug patents in certain litigations, are actively being discussed.