### Senate Judiciary Committee Weighs Bills to Repeal Supreme Court Decisions on Software and Gene Patents
The Senate Judiciary Committee is poised to examine two crucial bills that could transform the patent law framework in the United States. Should these bills be enacted, they would effectively invalidate important Supreme Court decisions that have curtailed patents on extensive software processes and human genes. The legislative initiatives have ignited a vigorous discussion, with advocates of open-source, biotech companies, and pharmaceutical firms all sharing their perspectives on the potential repercussions.
#### The Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA)
One of the proposals being evaluated is the **Patent Eligibility Restoration Act** (PERA, S. 2140), introduced by Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Chris Coons (D-Del.). This legislation seeks to revise the U.S. Code to abolish all judicial exceptions to patent eligibility, which would entail reversing several pivotal Supreme Court verdicts.
A significant case that would be impacted by PERA is the **2014 Supreme Court decision** in *Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International*. In this ruling, the Court determined that simply executing an existing procedure on a computer does not render it a new, patentable invention. Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, asserted that abstract concepts applied to generic computers are not patentable. This ruling has been fundamental in constraining excessively broad software patents, particularly those that merely automate pre-existing business methods.
The *Alice* decision built on the prior case of *Bilski v. Kappos* (2010), where the Court denied a patent application for a method of hedging risks in commodity trading. Both decisions have played key roles in preventing what many view as unwarranted software patents, which often hinder innovation and result in expensive legal disputes.
#### Open Source Advocates Rally
The proposal of PERA has alarmed advocates of open-source and internet freedom. Organizations such as the **Linux Foundation** and the **Cloud Native Computing Foundation (CNCF)** have voiced their worries that the bill could lead to a revival of broad, ambiguous software patents, posing a threat to the open-source community.
In reaction, the Linux Foundation and CNCF have strengthened their collaboration with **Unified Patents**, a firm committed to protecting open-source software from patent trolls—entities that hold patents primarily to extract settlements instead of creating products. According to Unified Patents, nearly 98% of claims made by these “non-practicing entities” (NPEs) are settled outside of court, often due to the prohibitive costs of litigation. Nonetheless, when these claims are contested at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Appeals Board, NPEs face a defeat rate of 67%.
The open-source sector is concerned that PERA could incentivize patent trolls, resulting in a rise in baseless lawsuits that could hinder innovation and impose legal costs on small developers.
#### The PREVAIL Act: Restricting Patent Challenges
Another bill under consideration is the **PREVAIL Act** (S. 2220), which could complicate the process for disputing questionable patents. This legislation would set a 14,000-word cap on petitions challenging patents, which may obstruct efforts to dismantle intricate and overly broad patents. Furthermore, the PREVAIL Act would eliminate “clearance patents,” which businesses utilize to verify that their products do not breach existing patents before launching in the market.
Critics contend that these alterations would make it increasingly difficult to challenge poor patents, thereby bolstering patent trolls and large corporations with extensive patent portfolios. The **Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)** has been particularly outspoken against both PERA and PREVAIL, labeling them as “a significant boon to patent trolls, a select few tech firms that aggressively license patents, and patent attorneys.”
#### Genetic Patents: A Regressive Move?
Beyond software patents, PERA would also affect the patentability of human genes. In **2013**, the Supreme Court ruled in *Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics* that naturally occurring DNA sequences cannot be patented, even if they have been isolated from the human genome. This ruling was a major success for supporters of affordable healthcare, as it invalidated patents held by Myriad Genetics on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, which are associated with breast and ovarian cancer.
If PERA passes, companies could again patent isolated human genes, potentially establishing monopolies on genetic testing for specific diseases. This has raised alarms among healthcare advocates, who fear such patents could escalate the cost of genetic testing and restrict access to vital diagnostics.
#### The Discussion on Innovation and Patent Law
Supporters of PERA and PREVAIL, including pharmaceutical trade groups like **PhRMA**, argue that the measures are essential to safeguard innovation, particularly in emerging sectors like biotechnology. Senator Thom Tillis informed **Axios** that the bills would offer relief to industries dependent on patents to shield their investments in
