Summary#
The Prohibiting Adversarial Patents Act of 2026 is a Senate bill that would amend title 35 of the United States Code, the federal patent law. Its stated goal is to limit the ability of certain people and organizations tied to national-security concerns to receive or enforce U.S. patents. It has not become law.
- The bill would bar issuing a patent to a person if that person, or a listed related party such as a subsidiary, affiliate, successor, or assign, is on any of three specified U.S. government lists: the OFAC NS-CMIC List, the list under section 1260H of the defense law, or the FCC list of certain communications equipment or services.
- A U.S. patent would be unenforceable during any period when the person to whom it was issued is described by those criteria. This also covers patents issued before the bill becomes law.
- A person described by those criteria could still file a patent application and, except for the restriction on expedited review, have it examined. The bill would bar expedited review of that person’s applications.
- The President could waive the prohibitions for periods of up to 180 days at a time, after finding no essential security interest in applying them and submitting a detailed report to both congressional Judiciary Committees at least 30 days before the waiver.
- The bill says the restriction would not change a patent’s ownership or term.
What it means for you#
- People and organizations on the specified lists, and certain related parties: They could still file applications, but the bill would bar issuing them patents and would bar expedited review of their applications. The related-party rule applies to patent issuance; the separate rule on enforceability refers to the person to whom the patent was issued.
- Owners of existing patents: If the patent owner becomes covered by the bill’s criteria, the patent would be unenforceable while that status applies. The bill would not take away ownership or shorten the patent term.
- Other patent applicants and owners: The bill does not directly change their patent rights or application process.
- The President: The President could grant a limited waiver under the bill’s conditions; the President would not be required to do so.
Money#
No publicly available information on costs is included in the supplied material.
- The bill does not specify an appropriation, fee, fine, or cost estimate.
- It would require a detailed report to Congress before a presidential waiver, but the bill does not estimate the cost of carrying out its requirements.
What is unclear#
- The bill does not set out how the patent system would check list status, handle changes to a list, or resolve disputes about whether a person is covered.
- It does not define terms such as “privy” or “essential security interest.”
- It does not provide an appeal process or decision timelines for people affected by the restrictions.
- It does not specify an effective date or explain how the rules would apply to pending applications when the law takes effect.
- It is unclear how the bill would interact with other patent processes beyond its express bar on expedited review.
- Passage is uncertain: the bill has been read twice and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Case for#
- The bill appears intended to prevent people and organizations identified on specified national-security-related lists from obtaining or enforcing U.S. patent rights.
- A possible argument for using existing government lists is that it gives the restriction defined reference points rather than creating a new listing system in this bill.
- The presidential waiver could allow an exception when the President determines there is no essential security interest in applying the restrictions, while requiring an explanation to Congress.
Case against#
- The restrictions could reach related parties as well as the listed person, while the bill does not explain how those relationships would be identified or disputed.
- Existing patents could become unenforceable based on the patent owner’s status, even though ownership and the patent term remain unchanged.
- The bill does not set out an appeal process or detailed procedures for checking status, which could leave affected patent owners uncertain about how to challenge a decision.
- The bill does not explain how the restrictions would work alongside other patent processes or estimate the cost of implementing them.