I was honored to have testified on October 8, 2025 at the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearing on “The Patent Eligibility Restoration Act – Restoring Clarity, Certainty, and Predictability to the U.S. Patent System.”  The video of the hearing along with all of the written testimony is available here. 

I believe the hearing itself was a milestone with regard to how Congress may wish to look at China as a competitive threat.  From a broad perspective, the hearing was about the need of the United States to strengthen its IP regime to be better able to compete internationally.  I testified regarding how China has maintained an expansive – and expanding – scope of patent eligible subject matter, which has also better enabled it to address newly emerging technologies (AI, software-enabled inventions, genetic engineering, etc.).  The question left for Congress is whether unstable, unpredictable and/or narrow eligibility standards are affecting the competitiveness of the US economy. I was not, however, the only one to raise these concerns. Former USPTO Director David Kappos, for example, discussed how the increase in Chinese patent filings at the United States has enabled the United States Patent office to continue to grow; without those filings there would have been a net decrease in patent filings.  Corey Salsberg from Novartis noted how China and other countries can continue to grant patents on useful isolated human genes without ill effect.  Former USPTO Director Iancu also pointed out how China was leading in 37 of 44 critical emerging technologies.

Although China’s experience in patent eligible subject matter offers useful approaches for the United States to consider, the focus of the hearing is not how the US should follow China, but on what the US might be losing by not having a more expansive view of patent eligibility.  It is also important to recognize that legal transplants rarely operate in a host country in the same way as they operated in their originating country.   At the same time, there are also gaps in the data which should be addressed through proper Congressional or Executive Branch oversight. A comparative approach will have continued value to Congress as it considers IP-related reforms.